/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>>/christianity/

>>826416

Well, this board is called /christian/ and not /catholic/, isn't it?

>>826409

Martin Luther is truly an amazing figure for his time period, but Protestantism got out of hand over here in America and they're part of the reason why America's faith is dying inside out. Anyone who bends to knee to the LGBT forced issue and multiple genders are a crowd of heretics. Just look at the United Methodists. Women priests for the most part are inferior, they say stuff and its the exact same regurgitated crap you've heard anywhere else on the TV. It's almost they watch Netflix or cable to get a break from all NASTY politics that goes in the world, the ultimate hurter of women fefes everywhere. When you offer solutions to their problems, they go "no u can't do that :-)" Any tribe of women, is nothing, but a den of problems just like cat ladies.

>They have no pedo-priest problems.

Let me ask you, where did the pedophiles COME FROM? Someone… on some Satanic totem-pole… groomed these pedophiles beforehand… Then you blame the Catholic Church for this apparent problem because you're a filthy reactionary instead of person rubbing two brain cells to exercise critical thoughts. Remember the eternal enemy is always trying to divide & conquer the churches.

>>826425

I don't know much about American churches but in Germany we have only one unified protestant church called "Evangelical Church in Germany".

I don't attend it much (I intend to start doing so soon) but I've never heard them talk about LGBT or even refugees. They collected money once when I was there and I was pleased to see that it was going towards christians in Syria and not rapefugees or something like that.

I'm still sceptical about it because there are way too many women and I can't even find a church nearby without woman priests. I believe that every growing up person needs a father figure in their life which a priest can fill. When I took my confirmation course we had a male priest and he was an absolute bro and a chad, I had mad respect for him. I can't ever feel that way with a woman, because I just can't see a woman as an authority figure or as someone who can lead me on the right track or give honest advice.

But I don't have much choice, guess I'll just have to accept it.

>>826409

>he utterly destroyed it.

No he didn't.

>the catholic church was shit and utterly corrupted

No it was not.

>They have no mentally ill communist pope. They have no pedo-priest problems.

A human institution that is made of actual human, and therefore made of sinners, what a surprise! The Church isn't supposed to be some kind of earthly council of angels. Beside, you know very well that catholics are concerned by the state of the Church, and you know very well that we owe this to communism infiltration, not to the Church itself.

>Why is this board so anti-protestant?

We don't share the same beliefs, and catholics just outnumber protestants on this board. /christianity/ and christchannel are mainly protestant and they shit on us day and night. Maybe you would be fine there. That being said, I still believe that this board should be opened to protestants and that discussion is possible between every denomination. If catholics on this board are being provocative for no reason, I agree with you that they shouldn't.

>>826409

>your church is corrupted by Satan

>your Pope is a mentally ill communist

>your priests all diddle little boys

… winnie the pooh you, dude

>BAWWW Y U SO ANTI-PROTTIE!!! D: D: D:

Gee … I wonder …now I guess you'll say the usual, "I speak the truth out of love! Rebuke means insult you to your core and you're a snowflake if you can't handle it!" Remember that when your wife points out that you have bad skin and a micropenis. She's just "rebuking" you. Asshole.

>>826440

>Asshole

How very christian of you.

>>826441

Damn right it is. Jesus made a whip and drove the money lenders from his temple. He called the ruling class a "den of vipers". If someone's being an asshole, I'm gonna cord up my whip and call him an asshole.

>>826409

>>”Why are you so mean to us?”

>>proceeds to crap all over Catholicism

I expected no less.

>>They have no pedo-priest problems.

Yeah, nobody’s ever heard of any youth ministers getting out of line.

Maybe OP comes from a new Protestant Church out of pastor JimBob’s garage where they’ve declared the “He who has not sinned…” verse as “apocryphal”

You guys should seriously relax. It's just friendly banter. You can shit over protestants too if you like, I don't even mind. Honestly, there is no reason to get so upset.

>>826446

The Troubles were just "friendly banter"? Spitting on someone's Church is just "friendly banter"? Calling the leader of over a billion Christians a "mentally ill communist" is just "friendly banter"?

You're an asshole.

Oh … sorry, bro … it's just "friendly banter". Asshole

>>826447

>Calling the leader of over a billion Christians a "mentally ill communist" is just "friendly banter"?

Nah, that part was actually true.

>>826435

You found a diamond in the rough of Evangelical churches. I congratulate you. My Protestant visits in my area haven't been too for well me. They're too soft and that's why there's nothing, but women and old women left. I'm the youngest male in Protestant bible study outnumbered 10:1 The entire church could be filled with Islamists instead and they will still bend over for social justice points.

>>826450

What country are you from? I intend to move soon and I fear that the local church will be shit too, as you said filled with women and old people. I don't want to feel awkward and out of place and would rather have likeminded people of my age. Guess I have to hope for the best.

>>826451

I leaped from west coast to Nashville, thinking the folk around here would be more hardened than libs back home. My original Lutheran church was very conservative and plenty of guys to talk to. I have autism that only me lets me visit churches close enough to my new home. Only the local Catholic church around has a dedicated men's group.

>>826409

> the catholic church was shit and utterly corrupted and it was time it was reformed.

I, too, would like to join the Church run by perfect men who never sin. Sadly, I'm sure they wouldn't have me because I sin and need confession. Sadly, there is no such church. Yes, priest can sin. Show me a religion that's perfect, and I'll try and join it.

>>826435

You need to research more about the EKD then.

It is the most corrupt, antichristian, antigerman institution I can think of

https://www.zeit.de/campus/2017-11/pfarrerin-feiern-suende-kirche

https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Evangelische_Kirche_in_Deutschland

>>826417

sometimes names are deceiving

>>826466

That's sad to hear. But I'm from rural southern Germany and while I wouldn't call the locals redpilled, they are simple straighforward people who are not likely to submit to PC culture or anything like that.

>>826425

>Protestantism got out of hand over here in America and they're part of the reason why America's faith is dying inside out.

yeah, I'm sure the tens of thousands of children catholic priests have molested hasn't impacted Christianity at all. Like that pedophile ring in Pennsylvania that had dozens of priests raping thousands of children for over 40 years.

But seriously, organized Christianity, both protestant and Catholic have utterly failed our Lord and savior. The Christian world wouldn't be in the shape it is if that weren't the case. Take responsibility for your actions and get your own house in order.

I think it's because so many protestants sound like boomers who are still stuck in the satanic panic of the 70s and 80s

>EVERYTHING YOU LIKE IS THE DEVIL

>THE ONLY BOOK ANYBODY SHOULD EVER READ IS THE KJV BIBLE

>ONLY MY CHURCH HAS THE TRUTH AND IF YOU BELONG TO ANY OTHER CONGREGATION THEN YOU WORSHIP THE DEVIL

I feel like this is a loud minority and not the majority, or maybe they're just shitposters trying to stir the pot.

>>826409

In short, it's because the Bible and biblical doctrines are controversial, even amongst Christians. Reading it requires optimal intellect and there are many people who just can't accept all of God's Word. It's understandable because nobody's perfect.

>If something was corrupted by Satan, would you still follow it because Jesus did not descend and explicitly tell you to stop worshipping it?

Good question, OP.

By the way, did you know that Jim Jones, ordained Pentecostal minister and orchestrator of the Jonestown massacre, was a protestant?

>>827133

Not everyone who reads the bible is going to turn out like Mr. Rogers.

>>826425

>Protestantism got out of hand over here in America and they're part of the reason why America's faith is dying inside out.

Jews are the reason America's faith is dying inside out, and they're attacking both Protestants and Catholics through the same method… The seizure of publishers, media outlets, seminaries, and bible colleges. They're flooding all our spheres with complete garbage theology, creating a famine of good teaching, and then using that money and influence they've appropriated for themselves to install people into positions of power that serve their purposes. This has nothing to do with Protestantism vs Catholicism, this is about Jews vs Sanity.

>Just look at the United Methodists.

They actually had a split recently. To my surprise, apparently there were enough conservatives left in the denomination to officially force the pro-LGBT snakes out.

>>826435

>I can't even find a church nearby without woman priests

Your government might have something to do with that. The feminism is so strong there that I'd be shocked if it hadn't effected the churches.

>>826439

>/christianity/ and christchannel are mainly protestant

I liked it over there, but the BO decided to shut down christchannel and locked new thread creation on /christianity/ because apparently this board has moderation again? Not sure why gave him the impression that forcing Catholics and Protestants into the same space made any sense whatsoever, but that's why we're here I guess.

>>826530

>Luther did it out of hubris

>Luther says the church is corrupt? Be a virtuous and impeccable man then, show how its done.

You do realize that Luther did not want a church split, right? He only left because he was declared a heretic, accused of being a Hussite, Jan Hus did nothing wrong, btw and church leadership was actively plotting to kill him. What other choice did he have but to leave?

>As a proper way of 'reforming' the church there's St.Francis

From the looks of it, I'd say that didn't work very well either.

>verses where authority was given to Peter, even protestant scholars admit that's the right interpretation

Liberal ones that aren't considered credible. Why would you even bother bringing that up when the people you're trying to convince already find the idea so outlandish?

>>827139

>Not sure why gave him the impression that forcing Catholics and Protestants into the same space made any sense whatsoever, but that's why we're here I guess.

Neither board was ever for Catholics or for Protestants. This board was started by a Baptist.

>>827139

>Jews are the reason America's faith is dying inside out, and they're attacking both Protestants and Catholics through the same method… The seizure of publishers, media outlets, seminaries, and bible colleges. They're flooding all our spheres with complete garbage theology, creating a famine of good teaching, and then using that money and influence they've appropriated for themselves to install people into positions of power that serve their purposes. This has nothing to do with Protestantism vs Catholicism, this is about Jews vs Sanity.

Exodus 20:16 and Deuteronomy 5:20, the Ninth Commandment:

>You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

How far will I have to dig into this to find your place in hell?

>>827138

So I noticed.

Unrelated question: do you think Martin Luther violated the above commandment with his Von den Juden und ihren Lügen?

>>826447

>The Goa Inquisition (Portuguese: Inquisição de Goa) was an extension of the Portuguese Inquisition in colonial-era Portuguese India. The Inquisition was established to force conversion to the Roman Catholic Church and maintain Catholic orthodoxy in the Indian dominions of the Portuguese Empire.  The institution persecuted Hindus, Muslims, Bene Israels, New Christians and the Judaizing Nasranis by the colonial era Portuguese government and Jesuit clergy in Portuguese India. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774 to 1778, continued thereafter and finally abolished in 1820. The Inquisition punished those who had converted to Catholicism but were suspected by Jesuit clergy of practising their previous religion in secret. Predominantly, the persecuted were accused of Crypto-Hinduism. A few dozen criminally-charged natives were imprisoned for numerous years, publicly flogged, or, dependent on criminal charge, sentenced to death, often by burning at the stake. The Catholic Christian missionaries also burnt any books written in Sanskrit, Arabic, Marathi, or Konkani that they could find in Goa, as well as restricted Protestant Christian books from entering Goa on Dutch or English merchant ships.

> It is impossible to know the exact number of those put on trial and the punishments they were prescribed. The few records that have survived suggest that at least 57 were executed for their religious crime, and another 64 were burned in effigy because they had already died in jail before sentencing. Other records such as those left by the French physician Charles Dellon, who was also a victim of the Goan Inquisition, and others, suggest that nearly 70% of those found guilty of Crypto-Hinduism were executed, many prisoners starved to death and racial discrimination against Indians was rampant during the Goa Inquisition proceedings.

>The Goa Inquisition persecuted non-Portuguese Christian missionaries and physicians, such as those from France. In the 16th-century, the Portuguese clergy became jealous of a French priest operating in Madras (now Chennai); they lured him to Goa, then had him arrested and sent to the inquisition. The French priest was saved when the Hindu King of a Karnataka kingdom interceded on his behalf by laying siege to St. Thome till the release of the priest. Charles Dellon, the 18th-century French physician, was another example of a Christian arrested and tortured by the Goa Inquisition for questioning Portuguese missionary practices in India. Dellon was imprisoned for five years by the Goa Inquisition before being released under the demands of France. Dellon described, states Klaus Klostermaier, the horrors of life and death at the Catholic Palace of the Inquisition that managed the prison and deployed a rich assortment of torture instruments per recommendations of the Church tribunals.

>There were assassination attempts against Archdeacon George, so as to subjugate the entire Church under Rome. The common prayer book was not spared. Books were burnt and any priest professing independence was imprisoned. Some altars were pulled down to make way for altars conforming to Catholic criteria.

>>827144

>Neither board was ever for Catholics or for Protestants. This board was started by a Baptist.

Yes I realize, but considering that we fought a massive, continent-scale war for separation, wouldn't it kind of make sense that we might want to segregate naturally?

>>827145

>How far will I have to dig into this to find your place in hell?

Is that like when you dig through the center of the earth and you end up in China?

>>827145

>Unrelated question: do you think Martin Luther violated the above commandment with his Von den Juden und ihren Lügen?

Have you ever even read On the Jews and Their Lies? What claim has Luther made there which you say is false. Please, get specific, I would love to know. And what do you say of the Popes that stood up against the Jews? This is not a Protestant or a Catholic issue. This is a 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 issue. Tell me, did the Apostle Paul bear false witness against them too?

Op

>Why is this board so anti-protestant?

also Op

>the catholic church was s— and utterly corrupted

You reap what you sew, Prot-bro.

You come here full of hate, dump on Catholics, and wonder why they answer you.

I've yet to see anyone go beyond the standard canned slander that have been going on for 500 years now.

"You have pictures and statues! heresy" Nothing wrong with pictures, I have a picture of my wife and child in my wallet to remind me of them. I have a picture of Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and his Mother to remind me of them.

"You call the Priest Father!"

Yes, he is the representative of God on earth, just a man, but giving spiritual powers to consecrate the Eucharist.

"a priest was a sinner! So all priests are sinners!"

Unironically true, but incredibly hypocritical and our Lord … is offended by hypocrisy.

it gets so old.

>>827151

>Is that like when you dig through the center of the earth and you end up in China?

Something like that, according to Dante and Milton.

>Have you ever even read On the Jews and Their Lies?

No, but I've read summaries from encyclopedias and editors of his works. Wikipedia's article about it begins with three lies that are attributed to him:

>In the treatise, Martin Luther describes Jews (in the sense of followers of Judaism) as a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth".[9] Luther wrote that they are "full of the devil's feces … which they wallow in like swine",[10] and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut".[11]

I call these lies because Wikipedia implies that he used these metaphors and similes as justification for seven more violations of scripture, thus implying he was indeed bearing false witness and breaking the commandment. I don't know about you, Anonymous, but I generally like to keep rotten garbage in the landfills where it belongs.

>What claim has Luther made there which you say is false. Please, get specific, I would love to know.

If you link your preferred English translation, I promise to read it until I find his first lie.

>And what do you say of the Popes that stood up against the Jews?

Given that you seem to hold these Jews in higher regard than these Popes, I'd assume that these Popes were in the wrong.

>This is not a Protestant or a Catholic issue. This is a 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 issue. Tell me, did the Apostle Paul bear false witness against them too?

Oh good, you've provided a chapter and verses! I encourage you to read beyond them, at least to verses 13 and 16:

>We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers. For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last.

With regard to Deuteronomy 18:20 (But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.) it sounds like God made sure that everyone received their just deserts. Truly, God is great.

>>827154

>Luther lied in "On the Jews and their lies"

>No I haven't read it

Read it and come back. It's not long. Go to archive.org

I'm interested to hear how you have a better perspective on 16th century European jewry than an author of the period.

>>827161

>It's not long.

>On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word anti-Judaic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther (1483-1546).

It's twice the length of Genesis, which I don't consider to be a short read. Even if you didn't ignore my request for a preferred translator, it sounds like you'd rather flee from me than confront your own source.

>I'm interested to hear how you have a better perspective on 16th century European jewry than an author of the period.

Easy: the "author of the period" was Martin Luther.

>>827154

>Something like that, according to Dante and Milton.

They wrote some great fanfics, eh?

>No, but I've read summaries from encyclopedias and editors of his works.

>If you link your preferred English translation, I promise to read it until I find his first lie.

https://archive.org/details/TheJewsAndTheirLies_201812

Keep reading even if you find an accusation that you can't verify, but do seek to verify them.

Proverbs 18:13

>He who gives an answer before he hears,

>It is folly and shame to him.

>a base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth

Having read it, yes that line is in there. And do the Jews not boast of their lineage, their circumcision, and their supposed adherence to the Law? Did Jesus Himself not accuse them and criticise them of these things in the gospels? Did God, through the prophets of old, not repeatedly accuse Israel of whoring herself out to the Baals, such as Marduk? In what way are these accusations false?

>full of the devil's feces … which they wallow in like swine

Everything has a context… Considering how fervently he was defending Mary's honor, I'm surprised that a Catholic would take such issue with his use of strong language.

>and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut"

And what do you say the synagogue is? Because from where I'm standing, the Holy Spirit Himself in Revelation 17, through the vision He was giving to John, called Jerusalem

<BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH

Does the Holy Spirit now bear false witness?

>justification for seven more violations of scripture

You must be specific when making an accusation.

>it sounds like God made sure that everyone received their just deserts.

You are so eager to dismiss me that you're not willing to consider what I'm saying. I'm not even trying to convince you out of your religion. Look at history… Tell me, did the Jews who were persecuting the Christians really all die in 70AD? I assure you that they didn't. Rabbinical Judaism and Kaballah are based on the traditions of the Pharisees, and the Jews will tell you this themselves.

>>827152

To be fair, those are really idiotic arguments. That's pleb tier stuff though. Better arguments are out there. I think we all know that the Reformation didn't happen because of a few statues or the existence of priests.

>>827163

That's a different person.

>>827168

>Martin Luther says that "the Devil is the God of the world"

Sorry but you completely missed the point and there is no problem with this statement. The material world is the domain of the devil where he is free to do as he pleases. He is among us, he tempts us everywhere and at every second of our mortal lives. In the same sentence Luther writes "where God's word is not, the devil has easily sailing among all men.

I have no idea how you could have interpreted that line as "Luther literally says devil is god".

>>827168

What is the functional difference between saying the devil is "God of the world" versus "prince of the power of the air"?

>>827163

>Easy: the "author of the period" was Martin Luther.

And? He was a doctor of theology who lived at the time and witnessed the Jews in question.

Let me remind you all of this parable out of Luke 20:9

The Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers

9 Then He began to tell the people this parable: “A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to [a]vinedressers, and went into a far country for a long time. 10 Now at [b]vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 Again he sent another servant; and they beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. 12 And again he sent a third; and they wounded him also and cast him out.

13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Probably they will respect him when they see him.’ 14 But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.’ 15 So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others.”

And when they heard it they said, “Certainly not!”

17 Then He looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written:

‘The stone which the builders rejected

Has become the chief cornerstone’?

18 Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

If THAT parable doesn't perfectly describe Jesus, jews and christians then nothing else does.

>>827168

>Martin Luther says that "the Devil is the God of the world"

>in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving

2 Corinthians 4:4. Paul is referring to Satan here, so Luther was referencing Paul. Get back to reading.

what you got to understand, OP is that the Roman Catholic Church has been defining itself in opposition to Protestantism since the Council of Trent (1545-63), so it's only natural that anyone who adheres to the RCC in a consistent manner must be anti-prot

>>827176

does that really mean they should be offended when they're told something isn't in the bible/is what the bible says not to do

seems kind of wrong to just become an opposite on principle

>>827176

Never even heard of prot theology and had zero contact with the topic before the internet.

But many Protestans who convert to Catholicism mention there was a lot of straw-manning of chatolicism in their upbringing.

why is the Captcha so funky? I am trying to post but it keeps saying i failed the Captcha when I did complete it. I don't know if this will get through, but if you can kindly answer. I would much appreciate it.

testing

>>827241

>But many Protestans who convert to Catholicism mention there was a lot of straw-manning of chatolicism in their upbringing.

There is, because it's such a complicated system. Uneducated people just zero in on the things that stand out to them that they don't like about Catholicism, but the truth is that it goes both ways… Catholics do it to Protestants as well. And remember that there are multiple types of Protestants who will have fundamentally divergent theologies, and thus ways of how they relate to Catholicism. So while one argument by Catholics may be appropriate against Arminians, it may not even make sense to try to use against a Calvinist.

>>827281

>why is the Captcha so funky?

I'm not having any problems with it.

>>826525

No it's just plain mindless crusader larper and romaboo hubris that grew out of contemporary /pol/tardery and have conditioned themselves to blame Prostantism for the sky falling down despite it having made considerable contributions to the world and the preservation of knowledge, and likely in contemporary periods to greater extent than other persuasions.

I'll tell you what Protestantism is like:

Christ planted a seed that grew into a mighty and healthy tree – the Catholic Church. Over a period of a long time, some of the branches of that tree aren't doing too well. They won't grow leaves or fruit. They have parasitic moss hanging off of them. They make the tree look bad, but the tree is still alive, and it's still the tree Christ planted.

Along comes some guy who doesn't like the way the tree looks because of all the bad branches. "This tree is awful," he says, "We need to do something about this!" So he walks up to the tree and takes a saw to it. He cuts off a big, healthy branch of the tree, leaving the withered branches behind, and then he sticks that healthy branch in the ground and says, "There! Now that is the way the tree should look!" And it looks kind of nice for a while. Of course, it does – it was a healthy branch from the original tree. But that branch can't take root. Everything nice about that branch was stolen from the original tree, and while it looks similar, it is certainly not as large and grand as the tree it was taken from. The branch slowly begins to whither and die completely while the tree endures because underneath the beauty it is unable to sustain itself.

Meanwhile, while that man is so fixated on his branch in the ground, several other people have cut off their own healthy branches, as well. They disagreed about which branch was the most representative of the original tree's beauty, so they've all chosen different, healthy branches to cut away (damaging the original tree) and planted those in the ground. Of course, all of those branches will soon die, too, and maybe some people who admire those branches will try to save them by cutting off smaller, not-yet-dead subsidiary branches from their already severed branch. Those will also die.

But now we revisit the original tree. Someone gets the bright idea to, instead of trying to save the beautiful branches by hurting the original tree, try restoring the original tree by destroying the parasitic and withering branches. Ultimately, the tree becomes steadily healthier and more beautiful. It may not be as glorious as when it first sprouted and grew from the seed Christ planted, but it will endure as long as it is maintained. Sure, it will have bad branches every now and then, but that means we should prune them, not abandon the whole tree for the parts we like, so to speak.

The Catholic Church is in danger right now from corruption within and without. We need to save the Church, and we aren't going to do that by removing the devoted Christians with a true sense of justice, if not sound theology. Every passionate Protestant with a true love of Christ represents a healthy bit of the tree that was removed by a fool who doesn't understand how the Church was intended to work.

>>827388

>Christ planted a seed that grew into a mighty and healthy tree – the Catholic Church.

So were all the bishops in the earlier centuries of church history that resisted Rome's supposed authority heretics?

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/rise-papacy/

>Over a period of a long time, some of the branches of that tree aren't doing too well.

You mean the trunk, in your analogy? You've got a leftist Jew for a pope washing the feet of black Muslims, as if they were brethren. Your tree is on fire, bro.

>Of course, all of those branches will soon die, too

I see plenty of branches that have grown into their own healthy trees. They aren't on fire either.

>Ultimately, the tree becomes steadily healthier and more beautiful.

How's that working out for you?

>Every passionate Protestant with a true love of Christ represents a healthy bit of the tree that was removed by a fool who doesn't understand how the Church was intended to work.

But those passionate Protestants, regardless of which denomination they hail from, all zealously oppose the very core of Roman Catholic theology… The Roman sacramental system. How could they ever be grafted back in when they reject both the need and the validity of the priesthood?

>>827393

Now that tree looks more accurate to me. Surprisingly accurate, actually. It has very good doctrinal groupings.

>>827395

>You mean the trunk, in your analogy? You've got a leftist Jew for a pope washing the feet of black Muslims, as if they were brethren. Your tree is on fire, bro.

Don't bother. I appreciate many Catholics over the centuries, but modern ones suffer from severe cognitive dissonance. Maybe reality is too painful to bear.

>>826409

https://youtu.be/O_AICBsBeoM?t=3210

just watch for like 1 min.

>>827402

>Saxon monk bad

>muh rock

>>827405

where in the bible does it say that you're only supposed to use the bible?

I can point to scripture that says you're not supposed to interpret things for yourself, you're supposed to follow tradition.

>2 Thessalonians 2:15

>So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

>2 Peter 1:20

>Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.

>2 Peter 3:16

>He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

>>827406

I am happy to supplement the Bible with any productive traditions that do not change or add to it's doctrine.

We really don't need to go through all the stale talking points itt

>>827407

your arrogance is showing. And "talking points", my ass, you don't have a response because at deep you know it's true. Protestantism is just organized heresy, just take a look at it's fruits, division, and anti catholic hatred. All the nonsense it started.

I'm surprised this garbage dump managed to figure it out.

>>827411

calling this place a garbage dump is not arrogance, it is well earned.

>>827416

>OH NO, that almost sounds like Unconditional Election!

isn't that just because God is timeless and knew you before you were born? What does that even mean?

>Roman Catholics from even 500 years ago wouldn't even recognize the church of today?

??? is this projection or something? As a Roman Catholic I have no worries about whether or not doctrine is according to tradition, it's not even a concern. I think the church fathers would have a laugh to see that people at core haven't changed. They wouldn't laugh when they hear you do not believe Christ is present in the Eucharist. You would be anathema if you revealed you were in schism with the Pope. Isn't it really you who is unrecognizable to the early church? I don't even think you have a priesthood! I think you should be worried.

In no way does "God calling and choosing you" mean that you do not participate in what he calls you to do.

The Protestant position is essentially that you do not participate in your own salvation, it is solely the work of God; This is how Martin Luther put it - "human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation … God justifies sinners in faith alone."

The Catholic position is that you do participate in your own salvation, so you are justified by yourself and God's working together - as in by God's grace in the sacraments, and your works.

I don't need to defend the truth, the truth is a lion, it will stand for itself. We cooperate with God to get saved. Do you really believe in your heart that this is false?

>>827421

Accurate, and yes. That's what the Bible teaches. Not very persuasive of you to appeal to the heart.

Why do you still post here if you consider it garbage?

>>827422

>That's what the Bible teaches.

That's what John Calvin teaches.

What the Catholic church teaches is what she has authority to teach, unlike your foundationless spin-off. Am I saying anything false here?

>>827422

Who knows, maybe it was to try convince you? I don't usually come here ever since it stopped being moderated, this is the only thread I've looked at.

>>827423

You correctly parrot the Roman church's claim that she is the only authority and I happily dismiss it. I practice the ancient Christian faith.

>>827424

let me know when you start practicing being honest with yourself.

>>827427

I am now. I have total peace and confidence in my faith before God. My family now and my ancestors before me practiced in this way, because we study the scriptures carefully for everything about our christian tradition.

Drop the snark and the condescension if you decide to stay on the board. It only hurts the image of your camp.

>>826409

>tfw you wanna be protestant but history and theology seems to lean towards favoring catholicism and Orthodoxy

>Tfw you don't want to be either Orthodox or catholic due to how corrupt, cult-like, and depressing they are

I'm leaning towards agnosticism not gonna lie

>>827419

>isn't that just because God is timeless and knew you before you were born?

Doesn't that mean that your actions were predetermined because you're a finite, timebound creature and can't do anything other than what God already knew you'd do?

>As a Roman Catholic I have no worries about whether or not doctrine is according to tradition, it's not even a concern.

You might want to start looking into that. You'll be surprised by what you find, I think.

>Isn't it really you who is unrecognizable to the early church?

Both our churches are, but that's not a problem for me. I'm not the one appealing to tradition to justify over a millennium's worth of accumulated doctrines and practices. I'm sure 2nd century Christians would be totally familiar with the Assumption of Mary. Or does that dogma not apply to them since it wasn't revealed prophetically to Pope Pius XII until the 1950s?

>I don't even think you have a priesthood!

No, Reformed theology acknowledges the (Melchizidekian) priesthood of all true believers. We just implement it differently. We go straight to the High Priest and skip the middlemen.

>I think you should be worried.

Nah, I've done my homework. I know where I stand before God.

>>827420

>In no way does "God calling and choosing you" mean that you do not participate in what he calls you to do.

<God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation

2 Thessalonians 2:13, remember?

>>827423

>What the Catholic church teaches is what she has authority to teach, unlike your foundationless spin-off.

Which can be improvised upon due to the fact that you still have what is, in practice, an open canon, by virtue of the fact that Rome doesn't recognize that prophecy has long since ceased.

>>827427

>let me know when you start practicing being honest with yourself.

Heck of an argument you've got there.

>>827434

>if your goodness really does repair the relationship between you and God, then it is by both God's grace and your goodness that you are saved, not by God's grace alone, nor by a mere belief in God alone.

Not the guy you were responding to, but obligatory Ephesians 2:8-10, just in case you haven't been exposted to counter-arguments in the wild before…

<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, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

>>827434

I'll have to go line by line

>I want to know what you genuinely believe if you're being honest with yourself

I answered directly, I have no doubts

> Do you think the good deeds done working together with him have no value?

No, I think they don't contribute to salvation

>If they do, why don't they work as reparation?

Because they're filthy rags compared to a holy God

>If they don't, why are they called good deeds at all?

That doesn't follow, good deeds are good deeds even if not contributing to my justification

> intuitive that human goodness really does have value, that's why God want's us to do good at all in the first place!

Agreed

>That's why human goodness works as reparation for our crimes … Make sense? … John Calvin .

No, because it contradicts scripture

I'm not a calvinist myself

>You have to understand, that is what the Catholic church teaches.

I agreed with your judgment at this above

You answer my question, where does your statement

>it is by both God's grace and your goodness that you are saved, not by God's grace alone,

Fit in with

<Ephesians 2:8-9

<8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

As just one example

Affirm or deny: "salvation is by grace and not of works"

>>827435

Nobody here is doubting that God knows our will before we do it. I mean even we can know what we will do before we do it, does that mean we don't choose what we do? The mere fact that God knows what you are going to do next doesn't mean you didn't still choose to do it. Mere knowledge of our will before we choose does not negate the fact that we made a choice. God chose us, we choose him, it is a freely chosen relationship, because God is love, which is to say, he takes on all of the qualities of love. He wants you to choose to reciprocate his love, how can you do that if there is no choosing?

>>827436

>Because they're filthy rags compared to a holy God

Human goodness is a filthy rag… right. Don't you know God loves you? He wants you to return that love to him! How can you call that a filthy rag, as if it has no value? That filthy rag is precisely what he died to have! I know the scripture you are quoting, but it is clearly true that both God and humanity value our human goodness. If our goodness has value, it can be used for reparation, and that means grace and works together save you, not just grace alone. Now grace is the most important element in salvation, because we cannot make it on our own, so it is true to say we are saved by grace, not just works. We only make it with grace, but does that mean the love we show God is without value? You cannot say love is good but good works is meaningless, work IS love! We are saved not just by God's love, but our love. How can anyone who says he loves God think his love is worthless in God's eyes, didn't he die to get that love?

>For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Do you really think Peter is trying to say in this statement that human goodness has no value? Isn't it far more parsimonious with the rest of scripture to think he is just reminding us that we can't save ourselves, so don't boast about it?

The only point you have to agree with for Catholicism to be correct is:

1: Human goodness has value.

2: Because it has value, it can be used to pay back for humanities crimes.

I already know you really do believe human goodness is valuable. You can't honestly deny it, your conscience would stir in revolt. If it really is good, then Calvin simply must have been wrong. The thing is it is more than possible that this can be the case, your church is something started by a man named Calvin in the 1500's. Where did he get his authority? He has none but his ideology.

To say that grace alone saves you is to say that human goodness, human love, human works, everything about us is worthless. That is real total depravity. Who can believe that a God of love could be so cold hearted as to not see any worth in our love! I do not know this God, a God who dies for something worthless. The God I know died for something that is so precious, he died for our love. He just wants you to return his love.

And I can quote scripture too.

Why is it that Peter and Jesus seem to use baptism as if it were something that washes your sins away, as if it were something you needed to be saved? When Saul first converted, was he told "let Jesus into your heart as your personal lord and savior,"? No what happened was "He got up and was baptized,"

Why is this so? This seems very Catholic.

>Titus 3:5

>He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

[I believe the original Greek meant "lather, to wash." Can you lather in faith, don't you lather in water? So this is saying we are saved and renewed by the holy spirit through baptism.]

>Acts 22:16

>And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

[Are you sure it's faith that washes your sins away? It is by water we wash the dirt off our hands.]

>John 3:3 + John 3:5

>Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”

>Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

[This is saying quite clearly that you need to be baptized in order to enter heaven. Mr faith is the only thing you need to enter heaven, what say you in your defense?]

>1 Corinthians 6

>nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[So why don't people in severe state of sin get into heaven anyways if it's all payed for by Christ? This was a crowd of the faithfully elect btw, not unbelievers, I mean the chapter is called "lawsuit with believers", but well that's another subject. Anyways, again, we see a reference to baptism washing, then sanctifying them from these people with severe sins, and then justifying them.]

>1 Peter 3:18-22

>For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

[Saved through water, saved through baptism, directly links baptism to the saving power and resurrection of Jesus, which is of course the Catholic view on salvation.]

Now we do not believe in baptism alone, so there is no contradiction with a Catholic being saved by either his faith or his baptism; but there IS a contradiction with a faith alone adherent being saved by baptism. You can quote your faith quotes all you want, but the issue for Catholics was never being saved by faith, it was being saved by faith ALONE, no baptism, no love, nothing, just believing in God will save you.

If baptism is either necessary for salvation, or able to wash your sins away, then salvation is not by faith alone, but can also be achieved by baptism, as to be without sin is essentially to be made justified. This is the Catholic position. This just seems so much more balanced and intuitive to me.

>>827452

>If baptism is either necessary for salvation, or able to wash your sins away, then salvation is not by faith alone, but can also be achieved by baptism, as to be without sin is essentially to be made justified. This is the Catholic position. This just seems so much more balanced and intuitive to me

I feel like I should point out that there many Protestants who aren't strictly of the Lutheran/Calvinist persuasion and who have more synergistic view of Faith and Works. Especially Methodists (Arminians) and Church of Christ (although, they don't like being called Protestant).

>>827388

I was expecting cringe, but I was pleasantly surprised to like this analogy anon :)

On a personal note, I don't know if I'd call myself "Arminian", but one reason I reject Calvinism is monergism. Irresistible Grace. The Spirit of Christ and my rebirth came only after I sat down and read the gospel. This took some free will and obedience on my part, as far as I understand it. I would say I was even hostile to what I (mistakenly) thought was Christianity at one point in my previous life… then somewhat cooled down and just quietly resisted.. until circumstances led me to just sit down and give it a chance. God was definitely and gracefully creating those circumstances, but it took me to finally shut up and listen. I don't want to give myself any bigger role than that, but it's a role nonetheless.

If I'm misunderstanding anything about the Calvinist view, please correct me. Thanks. As for Catholicism, my problem is issues of authority. Not salvation. I believe many of you are great - even if your leaders can be sketchy.

>>827450

Can you try reading what I'm actually posting and engage with that? You're arguing with stances I do not hold

>Human goodness is a filthy rag… right

Did I say that?

The filthy rags analogy is made by Paul himself. It's a relative statement. God is perfectly holy, and we are not.

>If our goodness has value, it can be used for reparation,

You keep repeating this non sequitur with no scriptural support, in the face of citations to the contrary

>Do you really think Peter is trying to say in this statement that human goodness has no value?

No I'm not, and I've already said so several times

>>827452

>as if it were something you needed to be saved?

Because there is baptism of water and baptism of the spirit. Every time you see the word you need to figure out which it is.

I would rather get through our first topic before moving to this because I'm afraid youre just going to keep talking past me

>If (water) baptism is either necessary for salvation, or able to wash your sins away, then salvation is not by faith alone,

Yes, and since the Bible elsewhere teaches salvation by faith alone, we can know that water baptism is not a saving work.

1 Peter 3:21

This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you—not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

If you reply don't assert yet again that I reject human good works. Rejecting that they play in salvation is not rejecting their goodness.

Affirm or deny:

>"salvation is by grace and not of works"

If deny, you are in explicit contradiction with Ephesians (written by Paul btw, not Peter)

Prove this claim exegetically:

>If our goodness has value, it can be used for reparation

This is apparently your whole argument against sola fide

>>827467

Actually a more relevant one

"Salvation is through faith and not of works", affirm or deny

If you love Christ and accept him as Your Master, wouldn't you obey him and not sin and gladly do the work he asks of you?

Wouldn't this be the fruits he spoke of when he said "By their fruits you shall know them"?

Don't mind me, I'm just a Catholic boy who the protestants keep saying I'm damned to hell and a pedophile because some fallen priest committed a terrible sin against a child. Not like there was anything in the 10 commandments against that, right?

>>827395

>>827399

>thinking that a man who heads the church for maybe a maximum of one generation can destroy a divine institution that has lasted thousands of years

It's not cognitive dissonance. We know the Pope is bad. We know the clergy is corrupt. We've also seen worse. This bad batch is a blip on the radar. This Pope is just one in a long line of Popes–some good, some bad. This Pope is a bad leaf in the grand scheme of this 2,000-year tradition. He'll die, go on to be judged, and a new Pope will take his place. Maybe a good one; maybe a bad one. But the Church lives.

>>827407

>I am happy to supplement the Bible with any productive traditions that do not change or add to it's doctrine

The Catholic Church doesn't change anything, and as far as addition goes, the Bible was only ever meant to be sufficient, not comprehensive. There is no reason to think that the entirety of what Christianity is can be contained within the pages of a few histories, prophecies, and epistles written by a few divinely inspired men. In fact, we have every reason to believe the opposite.

>>827496

>This bad batch is a blip on the radar.

I'm not so sure that this apostasy can be healed, as I think it is the result of deliberate infiltration and destruction by the Freemasons. Jorge is appointing Cardinals in bad faith to cement their control of the Church.

>>827436

>I'm not a calvinist myself

Calvinist here. I agree with all your answers.

>>827450

>Nobody here is doubting that God knows our will before we do it.

I know. That's exactly my point. Why aren't you in disagreement with it, considering you believe in Free Will?

>I mean even we can know what we will do before we do it, does that mean we don't choose what we do?

The action of choice takes place in time, yes. You have a will and you choose on the basis of that will. But what determines the nature and character of the will? Does it just blink into existence spontaneously, apart from God and outside of qualities that He assigned to it? If not, then didn't He design it? If He designed it, then didn't He determine it?

>Mere knowledge of our will before we choose does not negate the fact that we made a choice.

I completely agree.

>God chose us, we choose him, it is a freely chosen relationship

1 John 4:19

<We love, because He first loved us.

Cause and effect. Yes we freely choose Him… Because Ephesians 2:8,10

<For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

<For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Faith is the gift of God. That doesn't make the choice to love Him any less real or genuine.

>Human goodness is a filthy rag… right.

Are you seriously going to shrug off the words of Isaiah?

Isaiah 64:6

<For all of us have become like one who is unclean,

<And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;

<And all of us wither like a leaf,

<And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

>The only point you have to agree with for Catholicism to be correct is:

The Roman Catholic sacramental system.

>Because it has value, it can be used to pay back for humanities crimes.

Romans 9:31-32

<but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

If you think doing good things can in any way offset the penalty for a crime, I invite you to punch a cop car with the cop still in it and then offer to pay for the dent repair and buy them a coffee. See how that goes over. If you're doing good deeds in order to pay for sins, you've completely missed the point of the cross and of doing good deeds.

>If it really is good, then Calvin simply must have been wrong

Calvin was all for good deeds. He just didn't view them as God's compensation for His troubles. God has given His people something that they can never hope to pay Him back for… We do good because we are grateful and we love Him, not because there's still a negative balance on our savings account. That debt was wiped out. In fact, the whole account was closed. God gave us each a card that draws from Jesus's checking account now, and he is Scrooge McDuck diving-into-pools-of-money rich in righteousness. My expenses are not charged to my account anymore: they are charged to His, thank God.

>your church is something started by a man named Calvin in the 1500's.

Your grasp of recent church history is wanting. Calvin didn't start any churches, nor was he some kind of anti-pope figure.

>Where did he get his authority?

Scripture. You'll say yours is from tradition, but frankly we just don't believe your traditions are actually traditional. Apparently millions of other people didn't either, once they got ahold of the scriptures in their native languages. Food for thought.

>To say that grace alone saves you is to say that human goodness, human love, human works, everything about us is worthless.

False dichotomy.

>I do not know this God, a God who dies for something worthless.

What a remarkable admission, so perfectly and starkly demonstrating the difference between our mindsets. That's exactly the God that has the power to save. None other.

>>827452

>When Saul first converted, was he told "let Jesus into your heart as your personal lord and savior,"? No what happened was "He got up and was baptized,"

Because baptism is the sign of the new covenant, like circumcision was of the old. Of course he's going to be baptised.

>I believe the original Greek meant "lather, to wash."

>So this is saying we are saved and renewed by the holy spirit through baptism.

βαπτίζω certainly means to submerge in water, no question about that. But it's pretty silly to try to cram an entire theology of the Holy Spirit's role in baptism into the definition of a single Greek word.

>Are you sure it's faith that washes your sins away?

You put emphasis on "wash your sins away", but you conveniently ignored, "calling on his name." You must both believe in your heart and confess with your mouth as a testimony of the faith that is in you. What do you think baptism is but a public testimony?

>This is saying quite clearly that you need to be baptized in order to enter heaven.

Being born of water in this context is being physically born. That's why Jesus says you must be born again. John's baptism is not the same as baptism in the new covenant. It wouldn't even make sense for Jesus to be referring to be talking to a prominent religious Jew about a practice that He hadn't commanded yet because the new covenant wasn't instituted yet. Talk about an anachronism, jeez.

>So why don't people in severe state of sin get into heaven anyways if it's all payed for by Christ?

The problem is that Paul doesn't mention or even imply the concept of "severe state of sin" anywhere in this letter. No one would come to that conclusion from a plain reading of the text. You do because you have an external tradition that causes you to import an entire phantom context and apply it to Paul's words. Your argument falls flat because we do not accept the authority or authenticity of your traditions, which are not drawn from the text. You have an external source of authority.

>I mean the chapter is called "lawsuit with believers",

Weakest argument ever… Most bible commentators title the passage as having to do with lawsuits because Paul is trying to discourage believers from suing each other in government courts because it will bring shame upon the church. Did you even read the chapter?

>Saved through water, saved through baptism, directly links baptism to the saving power and resurrection of Jesus

What part of not the removal of dirt from the flesh did you not understand? How much clearer could Peter possibly make this?

<an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

It's a spiritual baptism. You must be born of the Spirit.

>the issue for Catholics was never being saved by faith, it was being saved by faith ALONE

Well you definitely got this point right. I wish people like >>827455 would internalize the sufficiency of grace being the whole point of the Reformation.

>>827457

>one reason I reject Calvinism is monergism. Irresistible Grace.

Yeah, the whole adherence to an autonomous Free Will thing is the core reason anyone rejects Calvinism, no matter the camp.

>If I'm misunderstanding anything about the Calvinist view, please correct me.

There's not enough there to really correct, but I get you impression that you think Calvinism denies the will? Calvinism accepts what's called compatibilistic free will. You're free to act according to your nature, but your nature is ultimately determined by God. There's no coercion involved.

>>827467

>You're arguing with stances I do not hold

He clearly thinks you're a Calvinist for some reason. You're welcome to come on over. We have fried chicken and way more hymns than non-Reformed groups.

>This is apparently your whole argument against sola fide

That does look to be the case.

>>827467

>You keep repeating this non sequitur with no scriptural support, in the face of citations to the contrary

What scripture to the contrary, I don't even think you've addressed the point. I shouldn't need to quote scripture, it both intuitive and reasonable that if something is good it has value that can be used for reparation.

>Yes, and since the Bible elsewhere teaches salvation by faith alone, we can know that water baptism is not a saving work.

Actually the whole point of all these verses saying that water baptism saves you is precisely me trying to prove that it isn't by faith alone, but also through the sacraments.

But more importantly, for those other quotes there is a difference from the bible teaching that you are saved by faith, and teaching that you are saved by faith alone. There are many verses that state we are saved by faith, and I agree with them, but none of them explicitly say that we are saved by faith alone, and proving that we are saved by faith does not prove that we are saved by faith alone. As a matter of fact, the words "faith alone" do not exist together anywhere in the bible except James 2:24 which says "As you can see, a man is justified by his deeds and not by faith alone." You take Ephesians literally, why don't you take that literally?

>1 Peter 3:21

>This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you—not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Jeez what kind of translation is that, did you specifically choose the worst one or something?

1 Peter 3:21 New International Version (NIV), literally the most standard version, it's the first result on google.

<and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

I mean can you even get more clear than that! It literally says the waters of baptism saves you by the resurrection of Christ, I didn't even know this quote existed! This is like the picture of the space marine that points to his book and is like "It says you're a heretic."

Jesus' Resurrection saves us by cleansing us from our sins, so if baptism does what Jesus' Resurrection does, then baptism saves you! It's not by faith alone!

(NIV)

>For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

Are we really going to be so absurd as to think he meant this literally, that your goodness does not matter at all, that it is solely by God's help - Sola gratia - we are saved? I think you are taking this too literally.

It is only because no one can save themselves that we say "it is because of God's grace we are saved, not our own works," It is not to say our works are worthless for salvation!

I deny this overly literal interpretation. Salvation is literally contributed to by both grace and your works. It's ridiculous in light of the rest of scripture to think Paul said this unironically thinking our works are dirty rags that don't contribute to justification. He was more likely trying to emphasize that we all need help to be saved, and that God's help is the greater part so don't boast, to deflate an excessive value of human works.

I want to give you some scripture to show Paul did think our works (which is indistinguishable from our goodness and our love [1 Corinthians 13:3]) as something that does actually have value, and therefore justifying value.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 to a group of people explicitly stated to be of the faith and tells them

>"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

This would mean that if a believer commits crimes, he will not enter heaven. This can mean nothing other than you yourself need to be righteous to enter heaven.

>James 2:14, 2:20 and 2:24 says

<What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?

<You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

<You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

This means faith with deeds is useful for attaining righteousness, and of course to be made righteous is quite plainly to be made justified before God. Although really i'm surprised I even need to use scripture to prove this, it's pretty obvious that our good deeds really are good.

>>827467

Reminder that your argument is that human goodness is like a dirty rag in God's eyes, so it cannot justify us at all due to it not having any value. That's why it is by grace alone, not anything of yourselves, because nothing of yourself has any value in God's eyes. Do you see how horrible this line of reasoning is? These protestants who invented this sound little better than the determinists, deists, and the atheists of our day. The puritanical nightmare that followed is exactly what you would expect from slavery. No wonder they lie so much about Catholics, they stole our church, destroyed a wealth of church property, statues, and artwork in iconoclasm, divide among themselves and continue to divide and slander - it is the fruits of the devil. Can't you see how that might be true? Or are you too resistant to changing your mind?

Please, if this is not your argument, show me how it isn't, I fail to see how it can be anything but this.

The thing is, I don't know what you think salvation is, if you think it's some terrifying thing for your goodness to matter in the equation or not. In the Catholic view, small sins you pay for in purgatory, big sins send you to hell. If you made a big sin, or a little one, confess it to a priest and it will be forgiven. It's not hard, or something to be worried about, actually I quite like it. It's nice to do the sacraments, you feel better after them. It's not particularly hard at all to believe your crimes must be repented of and that the good you do really does have value in God's eyes, it's actually pretty natural.

I think a lot of the rift between us is not distinguishing when Paul is talking about moral instruction and "works of the Law" (the specifically Judaic rituals). He clearly valued the former over and over again, and instructed on morals and the downfall of those who didn't follow them. He even warned on those within the church (those apparently viewed as permanently "saved" in Protestant thought), and said to hand one over to Satan. While saying that others suffered for taking the Eucharist lightly.

>>827532

>I shouldn't need to quote scripture, it both intuitive and reasonable that if something is good it has value that can be used for reparation.

You do

>there is a difference from the bible teaching that you are saved by faith, and teaching that you are saved by faith alone

That's a point worth arguing. Do you have any in mind that seem to imply "faith and"?

>none of them explicitly say that we are saved by faith alone

Ephesians 2

A preponderance of verses declaring salvation by faith and not including any other alleged requirements

>James 2:24

>You take Ephesians literally, why don't you take that literally?

I do, but literal isn't the term you mean. You mean to imply I'm not using a consistent hermeneutic.

Justification as used in James 2:24 is not synonymous with salvation in Ephesians 2.

Read the rest of James 2. The point is that saving faith will manifest works. It is a false gospel to say that works are necessary conditions for salvation.

If you want to say that works are part of salvation in the way I just described, I have no quarrel.

<James 2:23

<So the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God.

>It literally says the waters of baptism saves you

Exactly the opposite

<not the removal of dirt from the body

The work is not saving

The baptism of the spirit is the salvation event

>Are we really going to be so absurd as to think he meant this literally, that your goodness does not matter at all that it is solely by God's help - Sola gratia - we are saved? I think you are taking this too literally.

Yes, we really do take the Bible at it's word

Are you conceding that's what it says?

>Works actually have value, and therefore justifying value.

Still a non sequitur. Still waiting for any argument.

>James 2

>This means faith with deeds is useful for attaining righteousness, and of course to be made righteous is quite plainly to be made justified before God

No objection from me. Saving faith will have works.

>>827533

>Reminder that your argument is that human goodness is like a dirty rag in God's eyes, so it cannot justify us at all due to it not having any value.

yes my argument is a direct quote from the Bible

<Isaiah 64 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags

Like I've already said, this is a statement of relative value. It's a simile. The good works have value, but nothing compared to holy God.

>That's why it is by grace alone, not anything of yourselves, because nothing of yourself has any value in God's eyes. Do you see how horrible this line of reasoning is?

Not my argument as I've said over and over

>No wonder they lie so much about Catholics, they stole our church, destroyed a wealth of church property, statues, and artwork in iconoclasm, divide among themselves and continue to divide and slander

Not relevant to the argument about what the Bible teaches, but it is inarguable that Catholics have persecuted protestants more throughout history.

It's wrong when either side does it still.

>Please, if this is not your argument, show me how it isn't, I fail to see how it can be anything but this.

Just read a little more carefully and think a little longer about it.

To say that salvation is not of works is not to reject good works. This is all I'm trying to get through to you.

>The thing is, I don't know what you think salvation is,

You would if you actually read what I'm saying to you

>It's not particularly hard at all to believe your crimes must be repented of and that the good you do really does have value in God's eyes, it's actually pretty natural.

Agreed

Reminder that it's thanks to Erasmus bringing critical attention to the Vulgate that we know "repent" and "do penance" are not synonymous.

"Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” - Matthew 7:24-27

I don't have to be a Catholic to take heed at that.

>This means faith with deeds is useful for attaining righteousness, and of course to be made righteous is quite plainly to be made justified before God

<No objection from me. Saving faith will have works.

You must not have read that properly because what I said is faith and works verbatim. I literally just said that if you do works with faith it will make you righteous, and that to be made righteous justifies. Does your own righteousness justify you?

In order for salvation to be by faith alone, it necessarily must be impossible for us to be righteous in any degree through our own will; because if we are righteous we are justified. I mean think about it, how can you condemn an actually righteous man to hell? You can't! To be righteous is to be justified! But if the good things you do really do make you more righteous, then they make you more justified!

That's why I keep repeating endlessly that you necessarily must think good works have no value, I'm saying that by your own logic, we have to not really be able to attain any degree of righteousness, that we must truly be in absolute total depravity. You have to believe all human endeavors are pointless, evil, or at best neutral; they must be totally incapable of anything good. That we are totally incapable of willing even a little good is self evidently not true.

>The good works have value, but nothing compared to holy God.

But if you concede that they have value, then you are not totally depraved, as you really can engage in genuinely righteous work. But if you can achieve some righteousness, you can achieve some of your own justification! Do I need to spell it out? This is faith and works! You participate in your own salvation!

>To say that salvation is not of works is not to reject good works. This is all I'm trying to get through to you.

I know what you're trying to say. I already knew that, I don't think protestants shouldn't do good works. I'm pointing out how bizarre and contradictory it is for protestants to say to do good works, even though their philosophy necessitates that there is no positive value to human goodness at all, because if human goodness really is true goodness it would absolutely and inescapably justify you. Human goodness is not truly good in the protestant system, all "good deeds" are absolutely worthless, or they would necessarily make a man justified.

I don't know how it is you do not see the parallels with the atheists. Election is a completely random arbitrary and unearned thing, we are scum of the earth who literally cannot really do anything good, worse than beasts, so it doesn't matter how much we sin, we can sin fornicate and murder 1000 times a day, but once you are randomly elected to believe in Christ you get paradise no matter how bad. It's the same thing! Its just like evolution, we lose our privileged place as God's prized creature and are regulated to something lesser like animals. There's no reason why you're here, you're just an excuse for God to get praise - sola gloria - you don't do anything that matters. Where are your instincts, your guts? You don't have any sense? Don't you see who is really behind this?

>>827540

>what I said is faith and works verbatim

Not in the quoted sentence. I even clarified.

>That's why I keep repeating endlessly that you necessarily must think good works have no value

>But if you can achieve some righteousness, you can achieve some of your own justification!

>if human goodness really is true goodness it would absolutely and inescapably justify you

>all "good deeds" are absolutely worthless, or they would necessarily make a man justified.

Asserting non sequiturs over and over does not make them follow. You have taken no steps to argue that they do, and worse still made no exegetical arguments.

>then you are not totally depraved,

I don't subscribe to total depravity

>Election is a completely random arbitrary and unearned thing,

I don't subscribe to unconditional election

>Where are your instincts, your guts? You don't have any sense? Don't you see who is really behind this?

Not an argument

This is not going anywhere.

You are flatly asserting that because works are good they contribute to salvation. You do nothing to support that this logically follows and have failed to argue for it from scripture, even apparently conceding that it contradicts Ephesians 2. You do not engage with anything I'm saying in any thoughtful way, all while being the condescending party accusing me of intellectual dishonesty.

Agree to disagree. I hope you'll stay on the board but start lurking much more than you post.

>>827498

Explain the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary if the RCC derives all her doctrines from the Bible

> There is no reason to think that the entirety of what Christianity is can be contained within the pages of a few histories, prophecies, and epistles written by a few divinely inspired men. In fact, we have every reason to believe the opposite.

The closed Canon and the sufficiency of scripture are the counterarguments

>>827534

There have always been Protestants who do not believe in eternal security or "osas". Arminians and wesleyans for example.

>not distinguishing when Paul is talking about moral instruction and "works of the Law"

We make the distinction. You would need to argue that he's exclusively referring to the law in all cases of denying works as salvific.

>>827542

>You would need to argue that he's exclusively referring to the law in all cases of denying works as salvific.

I mentioned some. I brought up that he often brings up moral judgements and instructions in his epistles - and these are obviously directed to existing Christian communities. Not outsiders. In the Calvinist mind, these people are already saved without any conditions of works, so is why Paul apparently wasting his time instructing them - and even warning them?

1 Corinthians in general is a good example of some of his frustrations on the community there. But I think the most telling passage of all is the one where he redirects the discipline back on to himself:

>"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

>

Here we have an apostle, of all people, WORRIED that even he himself might be disqualified… so he pummels himself, and refers to the Christian walk to something akin to training for the Olympics. That should humble all of us.

>>827561

>You have a very… Unique… Interpretation of that passage.

Not unique. It was Fr. Josiah Trenham who first woke me up to it, I think. And it isn't like he was familiar with Calvinism himself. He studied under John Gerstner and RC Sproul.

One more thing, ultmately, I think Trenham's wisdom on that matter comes from Chrysostom. Eiither way, it's definitely not a unique teaching. It's as old as the hills:

> and it is not enough to descend into the contest, nor to anoint one's self and wrestle: so likewise here it is not sufficient to believe, and to contend in any way; but unless we have so run as unto the end to show ourselves unblameable, and to come near the prize, it will profit us nothing. For even though thou consider yourself to be perfect according to knowledge, you have not yet attained the whole; which hinting at, he said, so run, that you may obtain. They had not then yet, as it seems, attained.

-Homily on 1 Corinthians

>guy pranks his community that he is better than the mother church

>500 years later prank still goes on

Read church history.

>>827604

Your reaction is so dramatic that now I wonder you think I was proposing there.

How in the world are you surprised that Catholics and Orthodox believe salvation is a lifelong process. Orthodox even tell you about theosis. What's your problem? You act like you ran into a Jim Jones cult.

>>827604

>And since you did not provide a chapter or verse number here either, the quoted text is 1 Corinthians 9:24-27. The text being referenced in Homily 23.

BTW I just figured that you knew what I was talking about (and you did).

I'm starting to wonder if you're just looking for fights.

>>827146

>>827146

Done by Catholics in name only soldiers.

Stop quoting from Wikipedia it is embarrassing. I don't quote from it,

itr also quotes on that page that Francis Xavier was the face of the inquisition… BUT…he had been dead 12 years before the events. More fake news

>>827550

>Romans 3:10,12

Read the Context instead of just posting this.

Protestants love to cite this but they cite this improperly, without context.

This is part of a talk about how certain community had fallen apart. For example, read this part from the chapter you quoted:

>Romans 3:18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Since this is in the same song that was in Romans, it means that it affects people globally, just like the unrightenousness part, right? Under this interpretation you are giving us, nobody has fear of God in their eyes. Yet…

Exodus 1:17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.

Exodus 18:21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.

Joshua 4:24 He did this so that all the peoples of the earth might know that the hand of the Lord is powerful and so that you might always fear the Lord your God.”

So many people are being said to fear the Lord, or being encouraged to, what does it mean? By your interpretation of Roman 3's, all of this is impossible. Its impossible to have wives that fear God, its impossible to find people who Fear God, and its impossible to encourage people to always fear God. And yet, this has all happened.

There are other examples. There are people who don't have mouths that are open graves, or people that aren't swift to shed blood, and there are people that are righteous.

>>827650

>It just boggles the mind how so many people can stare at the writings of the apostles, written specifically in the language of common Greek so that even someone with average intelligence could understand it, and not realize that they're interpreting it in a completely distinct manner from how they would interpret literally anything else.

Cheerful ignoring of Protestant Inter-Denominational infighting intensifies.

>>830074

I agree. Protestantism SUCKS. Thank goodness for the Catholic Church ( Though I will give the Orthodox credit, despite disagreements, you are not like the Protties

>>826409

Caths here are just butthurt that the Vatican signed Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1999 effectively saying that Luther was basically right.

or in their own words

>It states that the churches now share "a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith in Christ."[1]

So yeah. Also, most of people here are memeing brainlets who neither read the Bible, nor the Church Fathers. People should embrace High Church Lutheranism in my completely biased opinion - best of both worlds with pure faith in our Lord.

>>830153

Uh, the opposite

The jddj is a repudiation of Sola fide and no compromise for romd

Why so few protestant mystics or saints?

>>830164

The burden of proof is on your side. Here's a page from Vatican, quote it for me please:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

>my point

As you might notice, the fifth point says: our justification by God's grace through faith in Christ or said in Latin (a language every good Catholic should know): nostrum iustificatio per Dei gratia propter fide in Christo (my translation, pardon my rusty latin). Notice two words "fide" and "gratia"?

>the most important of which, for Luther, was the doctrine of justification—God's act of declaring a sinner righteous—by faith alone through God's grace. He began to teach that salvation or redemption is a gift of God's grace, attainable only through faith in Jesus.[1]

>He began to teach that salvation or redemption is a gift of God's grace, attainable only through faith in Jesus.

you can see a connection to gratia Dei propter fide in Christo here.

I'm patiently waiting for your reply

>>830180

I'm not Catholic

That's the conservative Protestant position, especially Lutheran

>>826416

I thought these boards were supposed to merge?

>>830202

That was before it happened

>>830309

I'm sorry but this is just a really this is a bad argument.

>>830309

The Vatican also says that Jews are going to heaven without Jesus, so that really doesn't mean much

>>830325

Its bad because, well, besides the Prot denominations which say that Catholics go to heaven so overall you're wrong already. The problem though is that you then contradict yourself and say Old Catholic teaching was that no Protestant goes to heaven anyways, which is just, eh?

>>830327

> the Prot denominations which say that Catholics go to heaven so overall you're wrong already.

Which ones say that? And if they do, why not just become Catholic?

That's the problem with arguing with Protestantism…. it's only common value is "Hate Catholics".

>The problem though is that you then contradict yourself and say Old Catholic teaching was that no Protestant goes to heaven anyways, which is just, eh?

I said the old Catholic teaching, before Vatican II which included Protestants and Jews, taught that non-Catholics can't ever go to heaven because they've not received the sacraments after Baptism.

The Post Vatican II teaching is that some protestants will go to heaven.

There was no contradiction. The teaching that was never supposed to change, was changed to appease the Protestants and jews.

>>830344

<he fell for Vatican II BAD meme

It's all so tiresome.

>>830347

There is no "new doctrine from nothing", brother. You have a meme understanding of how Catholicism catholicisms.

>>830346

I didn't "fall" for anything.

God does not change his mind. Vatican II would have it that He did. The I AM is eternal. If the Catholic Church is not the one narrow path, then it is nothing. There are no other ways and any teaching that says otherwise, like Vatican II, is false and a path to damnation.

Sorry, we don't get to dictate to God how The Almighty should run heaven and earth.

>>830366

>I didn't "fall" for anything.

Of course you didn't. That is why you're picking Councils on your own authority.

>God does not change his mind. Vatican II would have it that He did.

Are you pretending to be God now and not just another protestant Catholic going by his own authority?

>If the Catholic Church is not the one narrow path, then it is nothing.

And when did we cease to be the narrow path?

>There are no other ways and any teaching that says otherwise, like Vatican II, is false and a path to damnation.

Vatican II didn't introduce novelty. You're probably another radcat zoomer who thinks he has it all figured out. Or just another schizoposter who was successfully indoctrinated and is descending with progressive velocity down the sedevacantist purity spiral. You're interpreting the Council and rejecting it based on your own authority, so why did you decided to become a protestant?

>Sorry, we don't get to dictate to God how The Almighty should run heaven and earth.

Amen. We don't. But you seem to think so because you have it all figured out.>>830366

Catholicism is a favored sect for LARPers from /pol/, and it also happens to be prevalent in South America, which has an abundance of posters.

Ask them if they believe in evolution, and 9/10 they will say yes. That confirms whether or not they are Christian or a LARPer. You can't be Christian if you don't believe the first chapter in the Bible. You don't consider God supernatural, you attempt to put logical limits on Him. A LARPer fedora.

>>830429

>Catholicism is a favored sect for LARPers from /pol/, and it also happens to be prevalent in South America, which has an abundance of posters.

I find radcat zoomers to be rather unpleasant and uncharitable, but you're casting judgment on these brothers of yours when you yourself had your own spiritual journey. Just pray for them and correct them if need be. Also, what does South America has anything to do with anything?

>Ask them if they believe in evolution, and 9/10 they will say yes.

I'm agnostic on evolution because I don't care about the issue, but I'm not particularly resistant to it either. Why exactly is this your Litmus test, brother?

>That confirms whether or not they are Christian or a LARPer.

No it doesn't.

>You can't be Christian if you don't believe the first chapter in the Bible.

"Believe"? Even Christians who believe in evolution believe in Genesis.

>You don't consider God supernatural, you attempt to put logical limits on Him.

Like what you're doing? Who are you to impose to the Lord your God the way that He should go about Creation? You're being hypocritical, brother.

>>830447

>"Believe"? Even Christians who believe in evolution believe in Genesis.

Not if they think God is limited in his means.

>Like what you're doing? Who are you to impose to the Lord your God the way that He should go about Creation? You're being hypocritical, brother.

No he absolutely is not. The Lord said that "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

He's not imposing anything, this is what Scripture teaches. And I would rather take the witness of God on this issue. Many people demean and belittle this truth of God here. I've seen them do it, myself. They think they know better. But they are most certainly the ones being hypocritical. And they themselves admit, often times, as a matter of fact, that they do not believe in this.

>>826409

Roman Catholics basically admitted Martin Luther was right all along anyways by admitting Sola Fide was the correct doctrine.

Many of the Protestant off shoots that came after Martin Luther, however, have distorted, perverted, and subverted the Gospel.

>>830457

>Roman Catholics basically admitted Martin Luther was right all along anyways by admitting Sola Fide was the correct doctrine

No they haven't

>>830452

>Not if they think God is limited in his means.

That doesn't logically follow. There is absolutely nothing less than miraculous about turning rocks into intelligent life.

>He's not imposing anything, this is what Scripture teaches.

Nope, that is merely your literalist interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. And it's wholly unimportant because the Lord will not judge you for adhering to the correct interpretation of Sacred History.

>>830466

>The "interpreting" argument is tired because people do not interpret the Council but the actions of the Priests following it, therefore jumping that whole burden you mention.

And by "actions", you mean a hyperreality of priest abuse that is neither near you nor does it affect a majority of parishes. And because most radtrad zoomers are so emotionally involved in this hyperreality, they reject Councils based on the """actions""" of the priests. So what you're essentially doing is rejecting a Council not by what it says but by the "actions" of certain that you have mentally catalogued and you base your rejection of Councils (which is totally NOT an interpretation) nor based on actual reason but rather on emotion. And this seems acceptable to you.

>It seems that many Priests are using the Vatican II (…) as a justification for many things that are deemed quite horrifying, such as certain brands of ecumenism and other things we should deem bad.

I have attended Novus Ordo all my life, I have taught catechises, I have involved in my parish for most of my life. I have absolutely no idea of what you're taking about here. What are these things that are happening near you? The Pope being pastoral in Rome? That's it? Or are you American and you have to deal with actual bullcrap like masonic infiltration of the Church? Or are you Quebecois and you have to deal with resurgent scandal like the Duplessis orphans? What exactly is your problem here? Is it another abstraction that is totally real in your mind?

>(You are telling us not to interpret it ourselves, which is all well and fine, since we don't need to)

Tone down the smugness, brother. Your way of going about rejecting Councils is actually way worse than actual schizos that paint all sorts of conspiracies like Cardinal Siri being Pope. At least schizos read the documents while you merely deliver your perception of reality to a hyperreality that doesn't even make sense in the context of most Catholic parishes.

>>830479

>Hyperreality

We are accusing people of being schizophrenic so, let me say: You first.

>>826409

Jealousy

Because the Pope appointed by Christ told us that the scriptures shouldn't be interpreted by laymen and that they are hard to understand, and that it's better for the interpretation of scripture to be universally agreed upon and approved by the elders of the Church.

<>Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

2 Peter 3:14-18

<>So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Peter 1:19-21

Difficult matters of scripture should be discussed and defined by councils of Bishops who have inherited the pastoral authority to bind and loose from those Apostles to whom Jesus imparted the gift to interpret the scriptures. Matters of faith and morals, doctrine and dogma should not be decided by renegade priests and laymen who think they have private insight into the meaning of scriptures through the guidance of the "Holy Spirit."

>>830486

?

>>830495

I'm an Old Earth creationist myself, brother, but I'm agnostic on evolution. I just don't care about the topic and I don't think that God accepting you into His Glorious Kingdom is dependent on you having the right opinions (and they are opinions) on natural history. We're Catholics, we venerate enough Saints and we guard enough miraculous relics to understand that Our Lord is not bound to our miniscule scientific understanding of material reality. But these doesn't give us carte blanche to deny scientific inquiry, even despite flawed rationalist takes on this epistemological model, nor does this serve as an excuse to dictate to the Lord Our God what the timeline of creation is. Life is miraculous, it doesn't matter if it took seven billion years, seven days or seven seconds.

>>830479

I'm praying that we will be free of your accusations of hypocrisy that you have accused, towards someone who is upholding God's word. It's a lot more honorable to be the one doing so, than to be the one coming out and accusing him and you have so done and not retracted.

>That doesn't logically follow.

You can't believe in Genesis and also think that God is limited to the materialist view of naturalism. The reason why people try to impose their darwinistic and materialist-naturalist views on chronology is because they think that God is limited in his means, and they are also visibly resistant to the statements that clearly tell us that, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

When the scripture on this matter is presented, there is only a spirit of contradiction and dissent in said persons. When anyone presents the plain facts given out of the word of God, they aren't keen to agree. They are only keen to interject their own personal false materialist nonbiblical views.

>Nope, that is merely your literalist interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures.

I just posted the scripture and said that is what it teaches. We are right to say that

>"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

is what Scripture teaches. It's not an interpretation, it's what the word of God says. There is no need to be resistant as you appear to be by not accepting that this is what the Scriptures say.

>And it's wholly unimportant

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

>because the Lord will not judge you for adhering to the correct interpretation of Sacred History.

His word will judge those that receiveth not his words.

>Life is miraculous, it doesn't matter if it took seven billion years, seven days or seven seconds.

It does matter what God's word says and choosing to reject some part of it means you will be judged by the same.

>>830500

>I'm praying that we will be free of your accusations of hypocrisy that you have accused, towards someone who is upholding God's word.

Brother, I retract my accusation and I sincerely hope you forgive me, I didn't meant this conversation to devolve into petty name calling so please accept my apology, I meant no disrespect by it. In fact, it was very poor wording on my part, because what I meant to say is that it's "contradictory", like life has to come about in a very specific way for it to be the miraculous work of the Lord.

>You can't believe in Genesis and also think that God is limited to the materialist view of naturalism.

I don't think that's true. Evolutionism is certainly a materialistic explanation and I'm sympathetic to the argument that it overly rationalises the Lord Our God and even presumes to make Him wholly intelligible to our puny human minds, but if that is your framework and you accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour, so be it, brother.

>When the scripture on this matter is presented, there is only a spirit of contradiction and dissent in said persons. When anyone presents the plain facts given out of the word of God, they aren't keen to agree. They are only keen to interject their own personal false materialist nonbiblical views.

I would refrain from using such charged language as "false" or "nonbiblical", I don't think that is helpful. But if you're going to be a literalist, then you have to contend with the contradictions like that Adam naming all the animals in 24 hours. And again, this isn't even a salvific problem, you are not going to make it to Heaven just because you had all the correct opinions of Creation.

>is what Scripture teaches. It's not an interpretation, it's what the word of God says. There is no need to be resistant as you appear to be by not accepting that this is what the Scriptures say.

Those can refer perfectly to phases of creation. You're holding to a literalistic understanding of Scripture that might not even be true.

It really just depends on who is on the board. If the catholics are here, then it is a catholic board. If the mormons are here, it is a mormon board. None of these faiths have a monopoly on our Lord. If the Adventists are right, we will be forgiven still for not believing them. We might need the right Methodist to find The Way.

>>826458

The idea that those traditions include divinely inspired truth by a particular bishop at a particular diocese to be obeyed down through the generations doesn't exist within this context.

It would be like my grandpa writing a letter to me, giving me good advice in saying that I should keep general conservative chivalrous rules for living life as a healthy young male. And then for someone, hundreds of years later, to imply that some how- my grandson who knew the letters my grandfather wrote to me also had this perfect understanding of high moral living. And therefore it is of equal value. Even if grandsons lived in harlotry, were drunkards, revilers and the like.

>>830523

>Brother, I retract my accusation and I sincerely hope you forgive me, I didn't meant this conversation to devolve into petty name calling so please accept my apology, I meant no disrespect by it.

Ok, just so we're clear that he is not "being hypocritical" for upholding what the word of God actually says as fact. That's all I want to clear up.

>because what I meant to say is that it's "contradictory",

No it's not.

>>830539

The way they interpret that is completely bizarre. It's as if they think the apostle Paul was making mention here of some super secret doctrine that is not allowed to be written down, hence calling it "by word" and that this is meant to be the one and only place it's mentioned. Because other than this one time, it's explicitly never allowed to be written down and is to be known as "traditions by word" as opposed to the "traditions by epistle."

It makes no sense my friend. It's not supposed to; the idea of this bizarro-version of Paul that believes there is some traditions that must never be written down, and that this is the only place where it is ever referred to, is only an attempt by someone to insert a loophole for adding whatever they want to the word of God. The actual intelligible meaning is, that whether you read the words written by the apostles (i.e. "our epistle") or you hear the same words directly, you are to regard it as the same either way. There is nothing magical about words that are written as opposed to being spoken out loud instead. The style or method or spacing of the words is not what is important, it is the words themselves. Being physically present and hearing the word of God spoken, by an apostle, with your own ears is no different than reading those words as they were written by them. This is what we learn here; and how do we follow this? We realize that the words of God are what they are, whether written or spoken, and go out into the world keeping them. As Jesus our Lord God said, If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

Further supporting this plain fact are the passages firstly of 2 Thessalonians 3:6 in the same book, which adds

>"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."

So then if someone who is called a brother (see also 1 Cor. 5:11) is not walking after the tradition which they received "OF US", namely, THE APOSTLES, then we are to withdraw from them. And how do we receive the tradition from the apostles? Directly through the word of God. Not through some middle man. If they don't line up with the epistles of the apostles, which we have in our hands, then the middle man (i.e. the guy talking about his own oral traditions) is a fraud and a fake. How do we follow this command? Only receive the tradition you receive directly from the apostles. In our cases, this command in 2 Thess. 3:6 would be obeyed by receiving only their epistle, only the words the apostles wrote.

Paul in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 in the very same book urges us, that if any man walks disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us then we are to withdraw ourselves from them. You receive that tradition directly from the apostles as he delineates earlier in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, whether by word or epistle it is the same. The fact I have his epistle is no different than if he were standing in front of me saying the same thing verbally. Accordingly, we all go with him and not some undeclared middle man.

As it also says in Ephesians 2:20,

>"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"

The second passage I have reaffirms this, in that it says:

>"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;"

I know who the apostles are. I know what the word of God says about them. And I am therefore assured about their witness, and I am not going to be led astray by random guys wearing funny hats who tell me that what the word of God says is wrong.

Finally, the fact that these false oral traditions-followers are around shouldn't surprise us. Paul warned about them night and day according to Acts 20:29-32. He said they ('grievous wolves') would come to draw away disciples after them. He commended the Ephesians' elders to God and to the word of his grace, "which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified."

>>830543

We also see the same exact error typified in the pharisees whom the Lord rebuked.

>Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

>For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

>And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

>For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

>But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

>And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

>Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Note, that this is exactly what the Roman Catholics do, as well. They make the word of God of none effect through THEIR tradition, which THEY have delivered. It is really just another sort of the false oral tradition of the pharisees that they pretended to deliver as well, and you will notice they are always trying to make the word of God of none effect, nullifying it with weird interpretations, giving loopholes for inserting strange teachings. It is just as our Lord said. If you read 1 Timothy 4, you will even see their doctrines of devils being foretold.

>"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

>"Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

>"Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

So the existence of false traditions regarding commanding men to fast (commanding to abstain from meats) and forbidding marriages are literally prophesied of in the Bible as "doctrines of devils". What more proof do you need that this prophecy is fulfilled in the Roman Catholic church, as well as various other state churches? Paul warned they were coming. Here they are.

>>830542

>what the word of God actually says as fact.

You are presuming that your interpretation is "fact". That may be the case, that might not be the case, I say that it is ultimately of no importance because there are more pressing salvific issues than having the correct opinions of history, but you presume that you have it all figured out and you insinuate that the eternal fate of your soul is based on this. Which is a bit absurd.

>No it's not.

No, it is. I meant what I say. It is highly self-contradicting to accept life as the generous miracle of Our Lord that it is but to only accept Creation as miraculous if it fits your preconceived notion of how God blesses us with this grace.

>>830548

> yet contradict each other on what that tradition is, and thus negate each other and their own claims to legitimacy and apostolic succession (vain genealogies).

Not really.

We both have the opposite rites in our churches, and accept each other's apostolic succession.

The only thing we disagree on is how much primacy the First See has, and the Filioque.

>>830550

You have different teachings of the afterlife, clerical marriage, Mary's status, and even God himself (Palamas vs Thomism), and many other things. You both innovated things, but in different directions..

>>830551

>You have different teachings of the afterlife, clerical marriage, Mary's status, and even God himself (Palamas vs Thomism)

All mentioned on both sides are, if not accepted as orthodox by the other church, atleast played with.

>>830548

You need to know symbology to understand Orthodox St.Christopher depictions as a dog. https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/the-icon-of-st-christopher/

Mary is never an idol, nor her statues. See statues of cherubs on the ark, moses's brass serpent on a stick. Whatever is used for God's glory isnt idolatry.

Protestantism a Holy spirit cleaning house:p…. it was a spirit, in that we agree.

>>830568

>See statues of cherubs on the ark

As small ornaments they are fine.

If people started bowing, supplicating, kissing and praying to those ornaments during a liturgy or sermon it would be idolatry. All Glory to God. Jesus is our one and only intermediary and intercessor and high priest and savior. His compassion and knowledge far surpass any saint or Mary, so he is our best mediator for prayer and supplication.

>>830574

>As small ornaments they are fine.

They were even more opulent than all the statues posted in >>830548 , except perhaps that golden calf. Feeling evasive?

>>830543

>>830544

Amen.

>>830574

There are many calls for intercessory prayer in the bible. Even right before the 'one mediator' verse there's: "First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be offered for all men,".

So this doesnt infringe or compete with the mediator Christ. Our intercessions are directed to Christ. Saints intercede to Christ.

Its the same that happens in the centurion episode when he asks his friends in good standing to intercede to Christ in his stead.

Many times in the bible we are told the prayers of those closer to God are more efficacious so its in our interest to ask for their intercession.

There is no supplicating nor kissing figures during mass. If people want to show their devotion by kissing whatever image, its their choice. Still those images all point to God's glory.

Statues and figures indeed can not be fine if people start seeing them as a deity and not a pointer to God. Like when the hebrews later on started worshiping the brass snake for its own sake so the king decided to destroy it.

First it was legit, then it stopped being legit.

>>830578

> So this doesn't infringe or compete with the mediator Christ. Our intercessions are directed to Christ. Saints intercede to Christ.

> Its the same that happens in the centurion episode when he asks his friends in good standing to intercede to Christ in his stead.

I think the problem arises at implying that Saints who have passed on (aka have died) have the ability to receive prayers and then intercede to Christ. Because this text (as far as it seems) doesn't show that.

>>830583

I'm neither Catholic or Orthodox, but they (rightly) don't give death much credence. The assertion is that we are all still one Church, and there isn't as much distinction between heaven or earth for the Christian. The same thought goes for the Eucharist, for example, or the Liturgy reflecting - truly reflecting - actions in heaven.

Protestants could do well with less Enlightenment based materialism in their thinking, and realize the mystical body of Christ and the liturgy.

>>830584

Well there is certainly scriptural distinctions between being a follower of Christ today in our flesh, and being a follower of Christ who are now asleep.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 is a chief example. As is

John 11:11

The issue with the text given that understanding is that this verse

2 Timothy 2:1

Is in sequence with charges Paul made unto Timothy that he may wage a good warfare (1:18). In fact it is an insistence upon the preceding verses.

Attempting to paint this as meaning all Saint's who have passed away when it's directed at those in ministry for the reason of fighting the good fight (namely Timothy) is simply reading into the text what is not there.

>>830588

Listening to prayers is miraculous? I cannot listen to my parents when they pray in silence- even if for some perverse reason they were praying to me. Am I, living in my body with the spirit of God within me, spiritually disprivileged? By no means, how then can you say those who have passed with lacking in 'spiritual privilege'?

>>830590

*are lacking in …

Furthermore, Luke 17:6-10 still testifies of both those in their bodies and those asleep of their 'spiritual disprivilege'. And it certainly is for a purpose as Luke 17 shows.

>>830590

You're not looking close enough, my friend. There is something to it. Could I go into detail, like Catholics think they can? No, but there is something more here than what most Protestants care to admit as well.

>And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. - Revelation 5:8

>

>And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand. And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake. -Revelation 8:3-5

>

>>830593

But I don't see how I'm refuting/at odds with those Scriptures

In my initial opinion:

prayers of saints != prayers to saints

(!= means not equal to in case you didn't know)

>>830594

Even if you see the prayers of the saints as those saints here on earth, it still doesn't explain the very 24 elders mediating these prayers (as incense) before the Lamb.. rather than the incense going directly to the Lamb.

>>830595

Also, I need to add, since Revelation is highly symbolic, I see the 24 Elders as the holy ones of both pre-Christian Israel and the Church. Not necessarily or definitively 24 specific elders. But even if they are specific people, that means Patriarchs and Apostles offer some kind of intercession.

>>830598

>A "new" traditionalist Methodist denomination would be formed as a result

Not necessary. We already exist (Wesleyan/Nazarenes). That split happened long ago because of another moral cowardice (originally the split was because Methodists sided with slavers).

>>830599

Also, they're not preaching the horrors of white people. Not really. That's just a facade, like all leftists wear currently. They're the most white, privileged class people around, with the most cringeworthy views on other races. They want other people to think small and live in a plantation mindset, dependent on the elites. Hilary Clinton is UMC and typifies them.

Offshoot Holiness churches have the actual racial diversity, if anything - and are more traditionalist to boot. Be it black, Latino, Asian, white, etc..

>>830598

I wish it weren't true but reason tells me that sodomites will continue wreaking havoc in denominational organized churches through their infiltration tactics. I am so glad in these times to be in an independent "congregational" church where any infiltrators can be confronted directly by me and no higher ups can corrupt my church from some headquarters somewhere. And I take a personal stake in making sure of keeping it out of our church.

>>830601

It's Christianity bereft of holiness that makes some of these people gravitate towards some churches. Not necessarily any organizational structure. If you tell people that there are easy requirements - be it rote ritual or upbringing (I'm looking at you Catholics or Orthodox) or simplified views of Faith Alone, then you will attract degenerates and at best, many people who simply "go through the motions".

>>830602

For the record, those groups I mentioned are entirely capable of espousing holiness. Very much so. But the "signal boost" isn't always strong, and varies from church to church. I could use the Orthodox example, who I observe from afar. In recent times, they've had a monastic movement of monks come into the US and build monestaries and are trying to revive more devotion and holiness among the clergy. It's having an effect on congregations now. There are many members in some areas who are appalled and shaken out of their comfort zone, protesting all of the changes and strictness. No longer is it the thoughtless church of bake sales and cultural festivals. They actually are being expected to live like Christians and some hate it. Who woulda thought.

Same goes for Protestant ""Faith based" churches. You're in danger to queers and scoundrels if you keep emphasizing easy salvation. It's a false gospel. Just as much as a bake sale is a false gospel.

>>830595

> it still doesn't explain the very 24 elders mediating these prayers (as incense) before the Lamb

But that doesn't mean the prayers were directed to the elders. There's still a disconnect of the 'who' is being prayed to which isn't addressed (afaik) here.

I would throw in 1 Corinthians 11 as a counter-balance if you will as to whom should be the person we direct our prayers to.

For those who are familiar, 1 Cor 11 is the chapter about headcoverings, well those who take the chapter to mean a literal headcovering call it such.

But in the chapter it's started out with (in verse 3):

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

verses 4 & 5 to establish my claim on it's meaning

"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

The head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, the head of Christ is God.

If the man covers his head while praying it means he's not praying to Christ. If the woman does not cover her head while praying (because her head is man) it would mean the subject of her prayer is man (namely, her husband) And if this is the true understanding of 1 Cor 11 as it pertains to the subject of who one is to pray to, certainly praying to any thing that isn't God would be just as bad

>>830602

However you want to theorize it, the bottom line and the thing that is unchanged is if there's a problem it's dealt with here not in some distant headquarters somewhere. They will have to physically start coming here in order to be able to affect anything. There is no distant headquarters to hide. These sodomites simply aren't having any effect here, I'm only reading about them infiltrating these Denominations, Like the RCC and others and thinking what a bad idea that was to organize like that. Deviating from the scriptural model of the church implies far reaching consequences.

>>830608

>But that doesn't mean the prayers were directed to the elders.

That's not what Catholics or Orthodox do either. They ask saints to pray for them. "For." Not "To". No different than asking another good person to pray for you ("The prayers of a righteous man availeth much."). They extend the meaning of what a "righteous man's prayers" are by including the entire Church of righteous men, across all time. That's the main difference.

I don't think it's necessary, mind you, but there is some basis for conceiving of heaven and earth as one. Heaven is not some "other" in the hereafter. Only an atheist truly think death ends with the flesh. Do I think Catholics get carried away with it all? Yes. Do I think a "patron" saints are a thing? No (by that I mean, saints who are especially helpful with specific subjects).

>>830618

Psalm 65

Praise waiteth for thee, O God, in Sion: and unto thee shall the vow be performed.

O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.

>>830578

Verbally asking your friend for something is fine. However, going to church, getting on your knees and in your heart praying to your friend for that thing is idolatry and a misuse of prayer. Prayer is sacred. Asking can be profane. Atheists ask for things, atheists don't pray for things.

Please have a higher view of prayer, don't muddle it with saints and icons, don't pray to your friends, don't pray to statues, don't risk idolatry, it's not worth it.

Keep prayer pure.

>>830644

My friend and companion, if they wouldn't listen to the word of God they are not too likely to listen to our exhortations on this matter. But I definitely agree with you. Jesus told us in Matthew chapter 6 that when we pray we are to do this unto the Father, that is "pray to thy Father which is in secret".

>>826409

It's full of catholics who see protestants as their evil boogeyman, even though most protestant churches have become apostate and followed after pagan rome anyway

>>830769

was*

The question was asked before the board merge

>>827141

>He only left because he was declared a heretic

>Cut out 7 books of the Bible and retranslate it to support your heretical view and get surprised you are called a heretic

Also he was bankrolled by a German aristocrat because he explicitly held that secular powers have more authority than the Church in their domain, EVEN in spiritual matters. No s— he got called out for being heretical.

>church leadership was actively plotting to kill him.

[Citation needed].

>What other choice did he have but to leave?

Not be a heretic.

>>840604

>>Cut out 7 books of the Bible

false as a plain fact of history

>bankrolled by a German aristocrat because he explicitly held that secular powers have more authority than the Church in their domain,

Yes his reading of Romans 13 led him to believe princes had authority in their land, not the foreign Roman church. You're being deliberately vague by saying "the church" here.

But as always, this is nitpicking on a single man of the reformation

>>840605

>false as a plain fact of history

How is that false? The Vuulgate, the first canonized Bible (done so around 400 AD), had 73 books, including the likes of Tobit, Sirach, 1/2 Maccabees, etc. The Bible used by the Reformers has 66 books, with those books specifically cut out. You can debate why they were cut out whether it be for theological reasons or just the over-reliance on Masoretic texts, but it is an objective fact they were cut out.

>Yes his reading of Romans 13 led him to believe princes had authority in their land

Yeah in temporal matters, and Christians ought to obey them, so long as their edicts don't violate the ones of God's throne on earth. Just because God's throne is in an distant land doesn't give anyone the right to ignore the God's own authority and replace it with that of a local ruler frankly. That's like saying the Council of Jerusalem or any of the ancient Councils are invalid because they happened in the past and are far away.

>>840611

*Vulgate

>>840611

>The Vulgate, the first canonized Bible

That's not how this works

>Just because God's throne is in an distant land doesn't give anyone the right to ignore the God's own authority and replace it with that of a local ruler frankly

God's throne is in heaven

>That's like saying the Council of Jerusalem or any of the ancient Councils are invalid because they happened in the past and are far away.

No it isn't

>>826530

Francis is pure prelest.

>he commanded that the people be gathered on the street in Assisi for a sermon. When he had finished the sermon, he told the people that no one should leave until he returned; he himself went into the cathedral with many brethren and with Peter de Catani and told Peter to do what he would tell him to do according to his vow of obedience and without objecting. The latter answered that he could not and should not desire or do anything against his [Francis'] will either to him or to himself. Then Francis took off his outer robe and ordered Peter to put a rope around his neck and lead him half-naked out to the people to the very place from which he had preached. Francis commanded another brother to fill a cup with ashes and, having climbed up onto the eminence from which he had preached, to pour these ashes on his head. This one, however, did not obey him, since he was so distressed by this order because of his compassion and devotion to Francis. But Brother Peter took the rope in his hands and began dragging Francis behind him as the latter had commanded. He himself cried bitterly during this, and the other brothers were bathed in tears from pity and grief. When Francis had thus been led half-naked before the people to the place from which he had preached, he said, 'You and all who have left the world after my example and follow the way of life of the brethren consider me a holy man, but before the Lord and you I repent because during this sickness of mine I ate meat and meat drippings

Choosing the higher cross to be seen farther away is pride.

>>840614

>That's not how this works

Except that is how it works. Look up St. Jerome and his work translating the Bible from both Greek and Hebrew to Latin into the Vulgate. It set the standard for which books are to be included in the Bible and which ones are to generally be ignored. Before then, the books of the Bible were known, but there was no standard canon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_biblical_canons#The_Vulgate_Bible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

>God's throne is in heaven

The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is both fully human and fully divine. Ergo, the Church is both fully human and fully divine.

>No it isn't

It really is. You are saying the Church only has ecclesiastical authority within a certain geographical distance, and outside that secular rulers can influence theology. If that were the case, then Arian rulers could make orthodox bishops preach heresy and that would be perfectly fine since they would be out of an area where the Council of Nicea is recognized as the Truth.

>>840617

>The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is both fully human and fully divine. Ergo, the Church is both fully human and fully divine.

That's not how the transitive property works, and that doesn't even have anything to do with the biblical fact of God's throne being in heaven

>>840618

>These debated books were labeled as apocrypha in the vulgate. This is on the link you shared.

St. Jerome later said they were canonical. Saints may be holy but they aren't necessarily 100% right all the time. St. Augustine said sex was even a sin within the context of a perfectly valid marriage. Even then, there are books like the Book of Enoch which are held to be non-canonical and still inspired by the Holy Spirit.

>The vulgate was not the first canon, and it was still debated in Rome until Trent. (After the reformation)

There were minor alterations like removing 1 Esdras, but the canon has been stable since the Vulgate came out in the 4th/5th century AD. The Council of Trent just formalized what was already informally known to be true: the Vulgate is the golden standard of the Catholic Church's Bible translations.

>>840619

>That's not how the transitive property works

If the Church is the Body of Christ, then it stands to reason that has the same properties Christ's does, just like your body has the same property as you do. It's some sort of semi-reflexive property more it being transitive.

>the biblical fact of God's throne being in heaven

Yes, but even in the Old Covenant, he had a dwelling place on Earth in the form of the Old Temple. Seeing that Jesus came to fulfill the law and not get rid of it, it stands to reason that God also has a dwelling place on the Earth in the New Covenant.

>>840621

>The Church is the body of Christ

>Christ is God

>Therefore, the Church is God

Do you see the problem?

>>840622

I'll concede that point and admit that I'm wrong on that front. Mea culpa.

>>840623

Jesus Christ is ONE person in TWO natures. One divine, one human. Sorry for hammering on it but this christological point is critical and getting it wrong leads to every kind of heresy.

Reject the human nature and you walk down the path of a gnostic, reject the divine nature and you become an arian, reject the single Personhood and you become a nestorian, reject the dual natures and you become a monophysite.

>>840621

>Even then, there are books like the Book of Enoch which are held to be non-canonical and still inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I’m sorry but I keep being compelled to bash this book. It’s a complete fraud. It’s not inspired by the Holy Spirit, it uses teaching from other books that are and mixes them with lies and tactically planned facts to make it sound inspired. Please read it gentlemen, carefully. There are a lot of questionable things in it. Am I the only one that read it after it kept coming up in conversations so far?

>>841211

>inb4 "no true papist puts semen on their porridge"

>>840621

> Saints may be holy but they aren't necessarily 100% right all the time.

I thought the point of Vatican Catholicism was that people in the so called magisterium were in fact 100% right all the time?

>>842375

That's the strange thing about it. They will admit the "magisterium" is outright wrong about an infinite number of things, yet cannot explain why anyone should listen to them then when even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The fact is, only the Bible is infallible. There's nothing true you get from these fraudsters that isn't already in the Bible. Yet, strangely, that is all they seem to want to talk about, to the exclusion of all Scripture at all times, despite admitting full well that they are wrong.

It makes no sense and never will; that's because it's sin, bottom line. These priests are basic fraudsters that mix in self-validating falsehood and lies with truth. Everyone admits that they are wrong except when it happens to serve their special snowflake purpose. That's the whole game, you individually choose what you want to say from them was infallible. As no two of them completely agree on a list of what is or isn't infallible.

Meanwhile, my church is in complete agreement about what is infallible, which is the final authority of Scripture. All of our infallible tradition comes from the same unchanging source, there is no disputing going on about what that authority comprises nor about what it says, it's the 66 books of the Old Testament and New Testament. You can't change it, it's an unchanging fact of this universe.

>>842376

>There's nothing true you get from these fraudsters that isn't already in the Bible

There are a thousand different protestant denominations all saying something different, but they're all the one true correct interpretation of the Bible? No, if there are 1000 different protestant denominations, then at least 999 of them are false, and there is no guarantee that the last one is correct either.

>>842392

The Grace of God for faith is not in your. This makes me sad. I can pray for it for you, but you have to accept it.

Instead, you choose the unforgivable sin.

You cannot even see the error in your logic because you're blinded by the love of sin.

>>842401

I'm blaspheming the spirit? Can you explain the logic of that one?

>>842391

The closer you get to God, there more the devil will try to deceive you. There's no reason for Catholics or Orthodox to be attacked so much when they're already on an extremely questionable path. The best strategy of Satan, sometimes, is to simply do nothing.

>>842415

Constructing strawman arguments about sola fide like the one you just did, that it means repentance isn't necessary, will actually have the inverse effect by pointing people away from your position and towards mine.

>>842392

>>842417

>Solo fide is heresy

>Strawman argument

This is why I have more…and more contempt for Protestantism. The way protestants try to justify sin, disgusts me. It is become more and more clear that Protestantism is wicked,

>>842392 pic is a checkmate indeed. Either one Protestant Church is right and the others are wrong, or they are ALL wrong. The fact you deny this simple fact abhors me. You are the one choosing the unforgivable sin, child. Regardless, we are still the fastest growing Christian group in the world, we will outnumber all other Christian religions by a long margin before long. Why? Because we are the Church of CHRIST. And all other churches fall short of the Church

>>842434

Are you the obstinate English second language poster? It doesn't appear that you understood what I just said.

>>842434

Cringe

>>842389

>The Bible says you're wrong.

The scripture passage in Matthew 18:20 does not state what you say it does, which is that something other than the holy scripture of the Word of God is infallible.

Actually we learn that, "160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

in Psalm 119.

>>842445

>There is one Holy Spirit of God by which, as it says Eph. 2:18, "For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father."

Okay, So the Catholic Church. I guess you're agreeing with me since you don't rebut the logical fact that at best, there can be only one Church

established by Christ.

>Now then if anyone is not saved, he does not have this access, regardless of membership in any church.

You've flipped the issue on it's head. I think that's called arguing the consequent fallacy. I could be wrong about the name of the fallacy.

I say God established one Church, you turn it around and say that if you're not saved, then what church you belong to is irrelevant. True, but doesn't address my argument about the catholic church being the one true church.

>I'm not talking about state churches here.

Doesn't matter and I wasn't talking about state churches either.