/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>830161

I would say Luther was a sinner and he made antisemitism difficult for Protestants in the future because he asserted the edomite mutts who call themselves jews are real Israelites chosen by God, hence Protestant American zionism. However, many Protestant individuals do act holy and adhere to scripture and do good works, hence them being rewarded by God. There is something wrong with most Catholics. Whether it's because they're simply usually inferior stock like South Americans or because of masonic infiltration is hard to tell. BUT Catholic tradition is the true doctrine, hence the most based Protestants like CI frequently citing the Apocrypha and following oral traditions amongst themselves. Also keep in mind the Nazis has the support of the pope while the allies were mostly Protestant nations. So even though Protestants usually win in the physical world they're not "always" on the based side. Ideally, we would have a Catholic nation of high quality stock and Protestant level resourcefulness, but of course Satan will never let all three happen at once because he'd be screwed.

>>830171

Go back to halfchan

The Orthodox Church is hard to argue with tbh. Catholicism is an easy target.

>>830176

No, it's easy to argue against orthodoxy. From generation to generation they've been under the oppression of Muslims and when in power lead genocide it corruption. The nation's they're preeminent in all have serious problems.

>>830176

An "obvious" target is not necessarily an easy one. And the Catholic Church is still an orthodox tradition, so I don't see how you can say that it's hard to refute the Orthodoxy but it's easy to refute Catholicism when they are essentially dogmatically the same. Perception, I guess.

>>830161

>>830171

>There is something wrong with most Catholics. Whether it's because they're simply usually inferior stock like South Americans or because of masonic infiltration is hard to tell. BUT Catholic tradition is the true doctrine

This, this, one hundred times this.

I know through all of my experience as a Christian that the Catholic dogma and doctrine is the true theology of Christ. I try to convince my friends and family of this, but all they can see is the corruption in the Church due to the 80+% of Catholics who don't practice authentic Catholicism or the massive issues with the Clergy (liberation theology, homosexuality, pedophilia, masonic and occult affiliation, etc.). I try to tell them that I agree with them on those matters – that even the great Saints of the Church agreed and spoke in warning of the bad Popes and Great Apostasy – but that the scripture and tradition and infallible proclamations of the eccumenical councils and the ex cathedra bulls, but most of all the sacraments of the Church are truly the heart of Christianity. They can't get past their worldly thinking and their conspiracy theories and their fallacious interpretations of Biblical prophecy.

>>830161

>We then see in Deuteronomy 28 that God told the Israelis that if they follow Him and do as he commands, he would bless them abundantly and show others the perfect way to him. Four nations that have been abundantly blessed are Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain and America. Each one of those places played a role in advancing Protestantism. Germany was the first to adopt Protestantism and housed those who were persecuted for advancing it; Geneva, Switzerland was the place John Calvin and others went to turn the worst slums in Europe into a better place by following Christian principles; Great Britain followed Protestantism and America did too. The other branches don't have the blessings these do. Why did God bless one over the other two? Because one sought Him out more correctly than others.

This type of civilizational prosperity gospel nonsense is why Islam is turning into wahhabi fanatics(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro-Islam#Background).

I don't give a rat's ass who is more prosperous, since that has historically included everything from pagans to arians to zoroastrians to muslims to catholics to protestants to atheists.

God shells out His blessings how He sees fit.

>>830189

>And yet, there are hundreds of different protestant denominations

Not an argument

>>830190

OP says that Protestantism is Correct. Which version? Which one is correct? Because they all tried to "simplify" Christianity – to create a Christianity we can "hold in our hands." They all turned out different. Protestantism cannot be correct because it is not unified. If the Church is supposed to be a single body with Christ at its head, Protestantism is a mutilated corpse, strewn about. The only thing Protestants agree on is that the Catholic Church is wrong, but they aren't in agreement about how the Catholic Church is wrong, though. In reality, a working body is not simple – it is very complicated.

The Catholic Church is the only unified Church. Maybe not unified by deed, but unified by belief in the official Dogma and Doctrine of the Church. Maybe not unified in practice, but unified in authority, just as there was disunity among the Apostles, but they were still a single body given authority by Christ.

—

C.S. Lewis, though Protestant, addressed OP the best:

It is no good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things are not simple. They look simple, but they are not. The table I am sitting at looks simple: but ask a scientist to tell you what it is really made of – all about the atoms and how the light waves rebound from them and hit my eye and what they do to the optic nerve and what it does to my brain – and, of course, you find that what we call 'seeing a table' lands you in mysteries and complications which you can hardly get to the end of … if you want to go on and ask what is really happening [in Christianity,] then you must be prepared for something difficult. If we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the something more is not simple.

Very often, however, this silly procedure is adopted by people who are not silly, but who, consciously or unconsciously, want to destroy Christianity … When you try to explain the Christian doctrine as it is really held by an instructed adult, they then complain that you are making their heads turn round and that it is all too complicated and that if there really were a God they are sure He would have made 'religion' simple, because simplicity is so beautiful and nice, etc. …

Besides being complicated, reality, in my experience, is usually odd. It is not neat, not obvious, not what you expect. For instance, when you have grasped that the earth and the other planets all go round the sun, you would naturally expect that all the planets were made to match – all at equal distances from each other, say, or distances that regularly increased, or all the same size, or else getting bigger or smaller as you go further from the sun. In fact, you find no rhyme or reason (that we can see) about either the sizes or the distances; and some of them have one moon, on has four, one has two, some have none, and one has a ring.

Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were making it up…

—

Of course, C.S. Lewis as an Anglican, believed in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in the impartation of sanctifying grace through Sacraments, etc. That is what he meant by Christianity being more complicated than people like to make it out (as well as the dogmas and doctrines). If only Tolkein had longer to work on him, I'm sure Lewis would have embraced Catholicism in time.

>>830191

This. Protestantism is SO TIRING. It amazes me the sheer cognitive dissonance among them. How can you say you believe the word of God if you can't EVEN agree on what the Word of God teaches? it tires me to no end.

>>830188

Lol I don't follow prosperity gospel. Also, I guess your God is God of all things except prosperity.

>>830191

>>830192

It's a non sequitur

>Tea is good for you

<If tea is good for you why do some people drink green tea and some people drink black tea? Non coffee drinkers btfo

>>830194

OP didn't say "good for you," he said "correct." Protestantism cannot be correct because it is self-contradicting. A particular brand of Protestantism may be correct, but Protestantism itself cannot be correct. It can only be correct about one thing; the thing they all agree upon: that the Catholic Church is wrong. Once you go any further than that, though, they all start disagreeing with each other and fail to provide a single coherent Christian view.

This isn't about whether tea is good for you. This is about a large variety of medications that cannot be taken together all in agreement about not being able to be used in conjunction with one single treatment. Even if you decide to rule out that treatment in favor of the medications, you still have to figure out which medicines to take – which will be effective and which cannot be used with each other. Saying "the treatment is wrong," is fundamentally different from saying "the medication is correct," because if you take the medication in general, you will be sure to die.

>>830189

>And yet, there are hundreds of different protestant denominations and each of them says something different.

True, including Catholicism.

>Thus Op's logic is flawed; it absolutely does not follow that God's word is something you can hold in your hands.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Have you read 1 John 1:1-2? Simply a question.

>Oh well. The Catholic church was big on logic, until Vatican II

According to whom? To larpers of a similar flavor to yourself?

>Even that is because of Protestant infiltration to destroy the church.

Can one offshoot of true Christianity infiltrate another offshot in order to destroy it?

>>830191

>If the Church is supposed to be a single body with Christ at its head, Protestantism is a mutilated corpse, strewn about.

We can expand this to include all infant baptizing state churches as well. They all include all kinds of things that Paul commanded us to withdraw from, as he says in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13, 1 Timothy 6:5-6, and while we are commanded not be conformed by this world but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds.

Fortunately, not all people have bowed the knee to Baal by introducing strange state church doctrines in which there is no Biblical justification. These are liars and false apostles, bringing in damnable heresies at various times, all of their own inventions, exactly as the Apostle Paul warned in Acts 20:29-32.

Meanwhile, what does Scripture tell us? See 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

>All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

It all really does make sense in this light.

>The Catholic Church is the only unified Church.

You mean an invisible worldwide entity that contains some of the worst blasphemers ever recorded and has millions of different versions of itself? Nah, that's not unified. My one visible, local church is much more unified than that. Also simply being unified is only one mark of a functioning church. There have been plenty of people unified to various wickedness as well. But the RCC and state churches? Nah, they can't agree among themselves on anything. That's why there are so many different versions of them, as you have likewise pointed out.

>>830195

>>830196

You're both still missing the point

The fact that Protestants have internal disagreements is not an argument against protestantism. It's a non sequitur. Literally logic 101.

Protestantism is an umbrella term for the many traditions following the reformation.

You're free to make judgments about the effects of Protestantism based on how you perceive Protestant denominationalism, but that's not an argument against the doctrines that define Protestant.

>>830200

>Internal disagreements are not an argument against Protestantism

> not an argument

How can you teach the word of God if you can't EVEN agree on what the Word is? it is like you do not believe in absolute Truth.

I tried Lutheranism. It lead to me being reprobate without guidance. I know Catholicism is true BECAUSE it makes you look at yourself and look at how you. No Protestant denomination can claim that. Protestantism is little different from moral relativism, it leads to all sorts of errors, like gay marriage. And the damnation of souls

>>830196

I can't agree much more. Protestantism is cancer. It makes no sense for a thousand denominations to disagree on the word and claim to be truth. It is little different from a bar, where you pick what YOU want God to be, and not do what you don't like. If a church tells you to stop being a drunkard? Go to one that says you can sin boldly. Absolute state of Protestantism. We may disagree with Orthodox on matter of faith, but at least they are not NEARLY as contradictory as Protestantism is. It is pitiful really

>>830207

I believe in absolute Truth, and what you're writing here is utter nonsense. My whole church is united behind one Truth, and it always has been. From the very earliest times. What you're disagreeing with me about makes no sense because people in the Roman Catholic Church use many different versions. Some use the KJV, some use the RSV or the NRSV, and so on.

Protestantism is little more than looking for "personal truths" Little different from pedophiles and and communists, as you

>>830208

They ALL have the books. Does your book have Maccabees 1 and 2? the song of solomon? Is based on superior texts not like the Masoretic texts? They are not all the same in what they say. My dads Lutheran bible say in Romans 3:28 that you are saved by faith ALONE, my DRC says that you are saved by faith. Tell me how they are all equal when they have different or even missing texts? And who do you think it was that collected the various books IN LIGHT of Tradition? It was US, the Catholic Church. Not Luther. Not Calvin.Not all the other false prophets. Us, the ONLY Church of Christ. every other "church" was founded by fallible men. We are the only one founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord gave the keys to the kingdom to St. Peter it says it right in the bible. And yet you guys seem to miss that part

>>830204

If you're not able to understand what a non sequitur is I don't know what to tell you

>>830213

It was founded by peter, whose seat is in Rome. Try again.

>>830213

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqLBeCmyaKY

>>830215

Absolute state of Protestantism. I HATE when people TWIST the Truth

>>830215

>>830214

Not according to Scripture it's not.

>>830216

So at least we're agreed then that you can't have a functioning church that is divided into different versions of the Bible. You can't have a church having unity, that is divided into so many splinter sects.

>people used the term universal

Yes, his church stands forth before the whole world.

>>830217

Yes it does. It states that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.

You can also find the references to the Catholic Church in St ignatius of Antioch's letter to the smeyrnees. He refers to Catholic Church which is in Rome

>>830217

Yes. The Catholic Church does rule the world as it is the Church of Christ. You keep lying and I DO NOT appreciate it. I caught you lying once. The more Protestants twist the truth, the more convinced of am of the insanity of it. Jesus gave us a Church. He did not give us a bible. He gave us the EQUIVALENT of the Old Temple

>>830219

>It states that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.

In Matthew 16 Jesus says that he will give it, not that he already has. And in the Gospel of John, chapter 20 which is chronologically later, Jesus actually gives them the authority that he foretold them he would. Please don't mix up multiple different parts of scripture out of order. You already seem confused enough in this thread. We don't need you adding to the confusion with misquotes.

>>830219

>I caught you lying once.

No, it was founded by Constantine.

>The more Protestants twist the truth, the more convinced of am of the insanity of it.

Are you becoming hysterical? I said it was founded by Constantine and I mean it was founded by Constantine. You haven't yet shown why you believe that is inaccurate.

>He gave us the EQUIVALENT of the Old Temple

What Scripture are you getting that from?

>He did not give us a bible.

Jesus gave us the word of God.

"I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

"I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

"They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

Amen.

>>830218

I'm trying to instruct someone who opposes themselves. That's all. I appreciate your thoughts and feedback though.

>>830200

>The fact that Protestants have internal disagreements is not an argument against protestantism.

The fact that Protestants disagree mean that at least most of them is wrong and not what God wanted you to believe.

There is one truth and it comes from God. Not hundreds.

Pro-tip: The Bible has a many instances of God's wrath on Sodomites, yet many protestant denominations like Methodist, Lutherans and Anglicans not only allow Sodomy, but bless it as a marriage. This is damnation. They are wrong.

>>830193

>I guess your God is God of all things except prosperity.

Nah, i have a financially comfy life, and my country is likely to deal decently with the coming recession.

But at the end of the day, even if i was some billionaire Gulf oil tycoon or some starving african baptist, it would still mean nothing for the claims of those religious groups.

>>830161

>Four nations that have been abundantly blessed are Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain and America.

What.

>Britain and Germany

Nanny states with stupidly high amounts of foreigners flooding in. Its like Babylon up in there, Lot's daughters would be raped and then beaten to death.

>United States of America

So much disinformation is going on in here that some people don't even know that the United States is at war. And nearly none of its incredible wealth which you brag about makes it way down to the average citizen.

>Switzerland

1 out of 4 examples are good, Protestantism is saved.

>>830240

Lol the sun never set on the British empire, America is a hyperpower, Germany is the economic and scientific capital of mainland Europe and Switzerland was there banking capital of the world. These are all truths and though they've faltered because of liberalism in recent times, they weren't always that way. You're being willfully ignorant or a flat out liar to suggest something else.

>>830240

>>830243

I think the point was more historically. Britain and Germany today are largely judeo-secular states. Both in leadership and in popular worldview. As I mentioned before, you have problems when you toss the Bible and the truth you have into the trash bin. Doesn't matter what you replace it with, you end up turning into an Eco-marxist who is swayed by the popular opinion and perception of reality. Completely blind to spiritual truths. It wasn't always like that in those countries. They have fallen to a pitiful state, with some honorable exceptions. The hard thing is that the honorable exceptions are always being mocked and shamed by the world that doesn't want them, and they largely don't like to accept them; This is also in accordance with prophecy. It's the one part of their society that they can't handle nor fit into their system except by trying hard to ignore it. So you never hear about it and it gets intentionally ignored in popular discourse of those countries.

Financial status is not correlated with spiritual blindness.

>>830245

You seem to forget in the Bible many, many times people were blessed by God, turned away and the blessings slowly left. Your entire argument for your religious beliefs rests on, "God blessed everyone else, but didn't bless us."

>>830236

Also

>The fact that Protestants disagree mean that at least most of them is wrong and not what God wanted you to believe.

No, you're misunderstanding the nature of the disagreement among Protestant denominations, and you're presupposing a one institutional Catholic church rather than the biblical picture of a Catholic invisible church of all the elect

Bruh, OP is literally arguing for prosperity gospel. Come on now.

>>830247

>No, you're misunderstanding the nature of the disagreement among Protestant denominations

Then rather than just saying I'm wrong, tell everyone here why one protestant denomination is blessing sodomite marriages, and yet another protestant denomination says that's damnation.

Take your time… I'm curious how you believe that both denominations are true and correct.

>you're presupposing a one institutional Catholic church

It is Lent and a partial abstinence day, so the red herring sandwich is tempting, but first lets discuss your logic that produces two conflicting truths.

>>830244

>What you're doing is called a composition fallacy.

No it isn't a fallacy. The issue of debate is "Protestantism is Correct"

By saying the argument that some protestant denominations conflict with others on fundamental truths is a composition fallacy, you've moved the goal post to "There is a correct protestant denomination, but some are in error".

Thus not all Protestantism is correct.

Besides composition fallacies are more like "This tire is made of rubber. Tires go on cars. Ergo, cars are made of rubber"

This logic goes like {Protestant} is true.

But in the set of Protestants there are mutually exclusive beliefs where both cannot be true. Ergo, you can't say Protestantism is true, you have to say some Protestantism is true and some is false.

>>830270

This is an instance of flawed logic on multiple different levels.

I can show this firstly because a non-Christian could argue the same way, they would simply insert the word Christian instead of protestant. They would say look at all the different Christian denominations, etc.

Secondly, you are presupposing someone else has argued that two mutually contradictory positions are both true at the same time. But in fact, we all know that's not true. Why would you even claim someone said this, unless you were being disingenuous? Therefore I see your argument as disingenuous and not being presented in good faith.

Thirdly, you argued before that the Bible was incomplete. The fact you saw the need to argue that shows that you at least tacitly understand the premise, which is that the Bible is proposed as the root of doctrines here. Surely, you aren't suggesting the Bible is self contradictory. No, so you have to export the alleged conflict to that between people. And the only way to do that is to first invalidate the Bible, which you have tried to do, as I've shown.

Lastly, since there is no agreed upon definition of what constitutes Protestantism, (cf. the person who expanded the definition to all infant baptizing denoms) we are also arguing semantics because not everyone agrees on what is or isn't truly Protestant. If everyone did agree on the definition, then the element of it being a purely semantic argument wouldn't be confusing the discussion.

>>830272

>And the only way to do that is to first invalidate the Bible,

This third one is probably the worst mistake, because the people he's arguing against certainly do not think that the Bible is incomplete.

>>830270

>tell everyone here why one protestant denomination is blessing sodomite marriages, and yet another protestant denomination says that's damnation.

Because one is liberal and the other obeys the Bible

>Take your time… I'm curious how you believe that both denominations are true and correct.

I don't

>>830271

Stop and reread what I said. Click my id.

Protestantism is a field of Christian traditions. They have a common genera doctrine of justification, and different doctrines on other issues. On baptism, only Lutherans or Baptists can be correct, not both.

I am pointing out that the fact that there are Lutherans and Baptists distinct from one another does not disprove the validity of Protestantism.

This one is a non sequitur.

On a separate issue, the existence of fag Lutherans or fag Baptists is no defeater for the validity of anti gay Lutheran and anti gay Baptists who have nothing to do with them.

This one is a composition fallacy.

Keep up the condescension, it's really helping your Catholic witness.

>>830276

>I don't

Then Protestantism leads people to hell.

Have a nice day.

>>830272

>I can show this firstly because a non-Christian could argue the same way, they would simply insert the word Christian instead of protestant. They would say look at all the different Christian denominations, etc.

And they would be right. It is irrational to take a number of conflicting, mutually exclusive beliefs and call them as a group "correct".

And your argument is to simply throw Orthodox and Catholics into the mix, and change who makes the argument - none of which is relevant.

The rest of your "rebuttal" is an ad hom at me. I'm so disingenuous, acting in bad faith, and definitely hell bound because I pointed out your bad logic.

>>830272

>Lastly, since there is no agreed upon definition of what constitutes Protestantism

Kwel… We're down to a semantic fallacy.

>>830282

a non-Christian could argue the same way, they would simply insert the word Christian instead of protestant. They would say look at all the different Christian denominations, etc.

>And they would be right.

Wait, what?

>And they would be right.

So you think it is a valid argument against Christianity?

>>830280

>>I don't believe both fag enablers and fag deniers are both biblical and correct

>Then Protestantism leads people to hell

?????

>>830283

It's not a "semantic policy". "Protestant", as a label, only exists as a Roman Catholic slur for everyone in Western Europe who started, for any reason, to break away in belief from the Roman Church in the Early Modern period. It just happened to catch on among people who had gotten labeled as "Protestant", but pretending they form some unilateral group is just ignorant and absurd. I'm sure many Baptists would object to the idea of being called "protestant", as inherent to that label is the idea of "Protesting", against something, namely the Roman Catholic Church. Lutherans might agree with such a label, but a Baptist would assert that true Baptist Christian believers have always existed regardless of the illegitimate Roman church.

Trying to make some argument about "Protestants" as a single lump group is like trying to make a statement about "Asians" as a single group. You can only say anything in the very broadest sense, but you're talking about a wide collection of very different groups of people.

>>830291

*fallacy, lol, not policy. Getting late, my brain's a little fried.

>>830291

Protestants are a single group with a unified definition, and there's nothing wrong with the word's origin as counter to something else. Yankee started a pejorative. Anabaptist means rebaptize, but anabaptists have a problem with that name even though they urgently reject the notion that theres more than one baptism.

>>830291

>a Baptist would assert that true Baptist Christian believers have always existed regardless of the illegitimate Roman church

Landmarkism is fringe

>>830298

>Protestants are a single group with a unified definition, and there's nothing wrong with the word's origin as counter to something else.

Here's the thing though. Imagine someone makes a thread explaining why Christianity is correct. Then some atheist or someone comes in and says that since there are multiple denominations, that proves it is false.

But the idea behind making a topic explaining why it is correct is inherently refuting the wrong versions of Christianity and asserting that there is a pure, true Christianity. The atheists isn't able to see past that and thinks the person is dementedly asserting that all versions of Christianity, even gnosticism, etc. are all true at the same time. That is not at all what the statement "Christianity is correct" means. It does not mean that every person who claims to be Christian is correct at the same time, but that there exists a correct doctrine within that set of core principles which is the true, correct Christianity, and therefore Christianity, in that sense, is correct.

It may also eschew differences that are purely cultural and make zero quibbles for variation with regard to things that have no bearing on doctrine. For instance, the preference of meeting at 9:00 instead of 10:00.

>>830301

I think the modern definition is more fringe and unlikely, it basically denies the existence of the characteristic baptist doctrines anywhere in the world before 1600. Even though Zwingli and Bullinger wrote extensive treatises against them, calling them Catabaptists and linking them to earlier groups. It's very obviously revisionist to try to deny these references in the face of it, so they act like they don't exist. It almost seems like commie levels of hiding things, especially if you look at how much information places like wikipedia and I'm sure modern textbooks ignores and obfuscates. For instance, do you think the "radical reformers" actually called themselves that title? Have you read Samuel Morland's 1658 book?

The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Vol 3, p. 251. (1830)

<It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANABAPTISTS. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day.

If you look at actual historical descriptions of these same topics, you find much better-sourced and seemingly less biased descriptions which include the relevant information. I haven't found where the supposed debunking of these facts has occurred. The mainstream in that field just stopped reporting them– Sort of like Red China. Also around the same time they changed position on several other things such as what is the most reliable text of the Bible. I have a fuller belief in the historical view on this subject and am more suspicious of the 20th century mainstream interpretation.

>>830161

>The fundamentals of Christianity must be drawn down to something that we can hold in our hands

I believe this is faulty reasoning. Especially since for the longest time, the majority of Christendom couldn't read to begin with. There's also the example in Acts of Saint Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch, in which the Eunuch is attempting to interpret the scriptures but cannot and require's St. Phillip's aid. St. Phillip was only on the same road as the Eunuch because he received a message from God that told him to go to this place. This demonstrates that God wants there to be a class of men who dedicate themselves to teaching the will of God as opposed to everyone attempting to interpret the scriptures for themselves. In addition, a single book could never encapsulate and entire religion, especially not the one true religion. According to John 21:25 there are so many things that Jesus did that if they were written down, the world would not be big enough to hold all of the books that would be required to chronicle them.

>>830359

Romans 2:6 "God will repay each one according to his deeds"

>>830301

Not an argument, not by any stretch.

>>830298

>Anabaptist means rebaptize, but anabaptists have a problem with that name even though they urgently reject the notion that theres more than one baptism.

When you say "anabaptists," are you referring to groups that actually accept that name for themselves (i.e. pacificts, cf. Mennonites), or are you referring to the lineage of Christians which has been defamed with the term "anabaptist" and even now rejects the appellation? except insofar as their adversaries referred to them as such?

I understand the work of some has been to muddy the waters in this area of discussion.

>>830372

>Especially since for the longest time, the majority of Christendom couldn't read to begin with.

As it says in 2 Corinthians 2:17.

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

We quickly notice that the word of God is not limited to being written but also that it is spoken as well. So then illiteracy is not an obstacle to salvation.

>There's also the example in Acts of Saint Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch, in which the Eunuch is attempting to interpret the scriptures but cannot and require's St. Phillip's aid.

This makes sense because as Paul explained in Romans ch. 10, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, and, just before this, how shall they preach, except they be sent?

So then the work of the Great Commission does not happen in a vacuum, but the word of the Gospel is preached by one person to another. Only after being saved does a person receive the dwelling of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 2:13, John 14:26, John 16:13-14, 1 John 2:27, etc.

And really, in truth, it is God which teaches all things while he has entrusted us to bring his word to the world and be a testimony to it. As Paul writes a short distance later in the same epistle to Corinth, "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. "

>This demonstrates that God wants there to be a class of men who dedicate themselves to teaching the will of God

I would arrive at this conclusion from reading where it is told that there are diversities of gifts, and to some it is given the gifts of teaching. But this in no way diminishes the working of the Holy Spirit in lives to guide a man "into all truth" (John 16:13).

>According to John 21:25 there are so many things that Jesus did that if they were written down, the world would not be big enough to hold all of the books that would be required to chronicle them.

Amen. And also, the Lord said:

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. — Isaiah 55:11.

And so we learn from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that the purpose of God's word, is, "that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

>>830361

Steven Anderson is a problem. He's a horrible example of a Christian.

>>830189

>the Bible itself says it's incomplete and there are other teachings

2 Timothy 3

This is retarded esoteric garbage.

>>830403

Bering mean is not a sin. Jesus rebuked many people.

>>830428

He isn't merely mean. He's nasty to others even in the Church. He equates everyone who deviates him on even trivial points as the same as faggots and trannies.

>>830428

Jesus only raised his voice to the Pharisee. Steven Anderson does that to everyone. He's using Christian as a weapon to justify his hatred. He's like Muslims who are attracted to Islam for its violence. Steven incorrectly interprets it and then shows hate to everyone.

>>830661

Bigger question, why is "hate" turning into a byword for moral evil? You realize the judeo-secular ecumenistical types are trying to redefine what the words "love" and "hate" means? Hate basically just means anything that doesn't agree with the mainstream view of hypertolerance.

>>830161

Which of the thousands of denominations is the correct one?

>>830664

You're just trying to justify his hatred of anyone and everyone he slightly disagrees with. I don't support LGBT stuff one iota, yet your argument is that we essentially need to embrace him. Where was Jesus stoning the adulterous lady? Where was he telling people to kill themselves?

Steven Anderson is full of hatred.

>>830665

Most are correct enough. Just grab a Bible and have at it.

>>830664

Lmao, love when Anderson fanboys start giving me the "it's just tough love, and saying it like it is", "just because he's not PC, doesn't mean he's a d—" script.

No, Anderson is just a screaming, abusive faggot.

>>830668

But which one is the true one? Many denominations believe in contradictory things, and Truth cannot contradict Truth.

As I know, "protestantism" is not a single religion but a term to the so many derived from the Reform.

>>830667

>You're just trying to justify his hatred of anyone and everyone he slightly disagrees with.

Then that would have to include me.

>yet your argument is that we essentially need to embrace him.

Who, Anderson?

>Steven Anderson is full of hatred.

I'm not stepping into that discussion. But I will say that I find the judeo-secular people who think hatred is always bad (i.e. "stop hate" signs) are the most hate-filled people on the planet. And I agree that hatred consumes some people and it shouldn't be. I just don't think saying because someone hates something that makes them automatically wrong, my point. God hates those that love violence according to Psalm 11:5. We should strive to be more godly and love that which He loves, and shun that which He shuns.

>>830673

They probably lack dads - especially good Christian dads - and gravitated to a strong personality, like his. Hopefully it'll run it's course.

>>830675

Context:

>Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Matthew 10:34-36

>>830696

So yeah, it's about family being anti-christian, not about being verbally and physically violent to everyone, like a howler monkey on meth.

>>830675

He was saying that if you follow him, there will be problems in your life. People will turn against you. It's similar to him saying you need to deny yourself, pick up your cross and carry it.

>>830699

Where do I even start with this conversation?

>Bering mean is not a sin

Actually being mean is being uncharitable. But simply seeming to be mean to some easily offended sin-filled people is not a sin. Maybe turning over some tables seemed "mean" to some people, but it was still the right thing to do in that situation. Being the Lord, we know what he did was the charitable thing for him to do in that situation, because that was supposed to be the house of prayer. Something nobody even picked up on in this thread. Psalm 119 says "My zeal hath consumed me, because mine enemies have forgotten thy words."

>Jesus rebuked many people.

This is an even better example because according to both epistles to Timothy and the epistle to Titus we are supposed to rebuke certain things openly "that they may be sound in the faith," and not be given to Jewish fables and commandments of men that turn from the truth (i.e. "but that's mean," "but that's hate," etc.).

Now to the reply,

>Jesus only raised his voice to the Pharisee.

He raised his voice to various unclean spirits. He raised his voice to the raging wind during the storm. He cried with a loud voice when he was on the cross. He also rebuked Peter and others at various times.

>He's using Christian as a weapon to justify his hatred.

Hatred of what? If you want to say someone is wrong ONLY because they have a hatred of something (even sin), then you are going down a dangerous path. I'm not an Andersonite. Saying "someone has hatred" is not saying someone is sinful. God hates sin. Psalm 11:5 says that God hates them that love violence. Are you going to accuse God of using that as "a weapon to justify his hatred"? This idea that "justifying hatred" is wrong makes no sense. It is modernist judeo-secular nonsense. God hates things. He hates sin. That's not a problem. There's nothing wrong with "justifying hatred" in the first place. I don't understand how you can complain about that!

And now the reply,

>Jesus beat moneychanging kikes out the temple with a whip. He did more than raise His voice.

That's an oversimplification, because Jesus is God eternal, he has done many things. He was there raining fire down on Sodom and Gomorrha. Yet he said in Luke 9:56 that "the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." So then we should actually be following his example of giving to all their dues in this present world (Romans 13) and living peacably with all men as much as is possible (Romans 12:18). If we wish to be forgiven, as fallen sinners, then we should also forgive for with what measure one metes it will be meted back out to him (Matthew 7:2).

Next reply,

>He was saying that if you follow him, there will be problems in your life. People will turn against you.

Yes, and following him means renouncing the things of this world and rebuking them. He said the entire world will hate them just as it hated him (John 15:18 - "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.")

This is because if we are dead to the world and sin then we are at enmity with this world (James 4:4) and it will be accusing us of "justifying hatred" because holiness and rebuking evil is something that it doesn't understand. It doesn't understand this and gets upset, so pretty soon people get accused of "justifying hatred" even though God hates those things as well! Read me well, God hates those things. And thus, people will turn against you if you rebuke those things, and start making all kinds of accusations against you.

>>830752

Dude, your entire argument is "Jesus was very angry, like, once, and the apostles wrote some letters scathing people for being drunks and sleeping around, so that means insulting and accusing people freely and without restraint is mandatory, because…progressives play with words".

>>830161

protestant churches are mostly apostate and wasn't luther a calvinist/gnostic?

>The fundamentals of Christianity must be drawn down to something that we can hold in our hands

No.

>>830172

Not an argument.

>>830161

>This noted the original composition of the Bible, without the books that were added in, from Genesis to Zechariah and then Malachi. The people at the time didn't dispute this. This was understood to be the correct composition.

Filthy lies and you know it. The Deuterocanonical works are as important as the other writings. Malachi was the last prophet before Christ, that does not mean that the writings after the prophets have no value. Who do you think wrote the book of Kings and Chronicles? Prophets? These were scribes, historians and the like. The additional Scriptures point to Christ more clearly than other books in the OT, that's why the Jews took them out.

These nations you are talking about were the most technologically advanced and the most liberal. What you are saying is since Protestantism Freemasonry, magick, and Enlightenment could spread to accelerate the downfall of the respective nations. If they stayed in the MIddle Ages, as the Catholic Church likely would have done for them, less harm would be. They thrived because Masons and Jews destroyed their morals and made them power hungry bourgouisie, then capitalists, now pseudo-Jews.

>>830161

there is no ism that can save anyone. You're not even acting as a Christian right now because you're insisting that it's your ism, not God, that provides for your salvation. you're guilty of the same behavior that dogmatic catholics do.

>>830187

This is what I've also been led to believe.

>>830161

Is success in the material world a measure of the veracity of a faith? Islamic countries are doing very well…

If you don't base your criteria on sheer wealth, Catholic people seem very blessed to me. Travelling in Spain and Italy, the traditional Catholics seem to have great lives surrounded by family and peace in beautiful small villages in the countryside.

Compare that to the protestant nations which have sunk into atheism and worshipping money… is that what the 'protestant work ethic' ended up getting them?

>>830161

>The fundamentals of Christianity must be drawn down to something that we can hold in our hands, knowing it's stood the test of time.

Nice sounding sentiment. It's meaningless however.

>As the Psalmist wrote, God would refine his word and it would be preserved from generation to generation.

need citation

> This is an indication that his Word would be maintained through history correctly. We can see that it has when we find old manuscripts that match modern transcripts with only insignificant differences that don't change the meaning of what is written.

So then why isn't the book of Enoch in the bible?

>But then the argument is, what is the correct make up of the Bible? Was Martin Luther correct to remove some? That's answered by how the Jewish leaders of the day looked at the Bible. Jesus answered this when he spoke to the Pharisee in Luke 11 and said, "50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all." This noted the original composition of the Bible, without the books that were added in, from Genesis to Zechariah and then Malachi. The people at the time didn't dispute this. This was understood to be the correct composition.

Your logic is the same as stating 1+1=3. But assuming your reasoning was valid, since it says ALL prophets and Enoch was clearly described as a prophet in the bible, why isn't the book of Enoch included?

>Additionally, we then look at history. Those who tried to get the Bible into more hands in other languages, whether Tyndale, Luther, and many others, advanced the Bible in extreme opposition to the established religious order which sought to hunt them down and kill them for blasphemy, even knowing a murderer would not enter heaven.

So?

>We then see in Deuteronomy 28 that God told the Israelis that if they follow Him and do as he commands, he would bless them abundantly and show others the perfect way to him. Four nations that have been abundantly blessed are Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain and America.

cherrypicking data to support your claim.

>So, why Protestantism? The Bible says, come let us reason, and to that we have looking at history and more.

These discussions from church worshippers are so tedious. just one illogical argument after the other. The Catholics have their human pope and the protestants have their paper pope.

>>837408

>It could also be from Isaiah 30:8, . . .

I should have been more clear, I wanted a citation saying that the bible specifically was God's word. But don't bother looking. I was being facetious because it doesn't exist.

If the bible is the complete and infallible word of God, then the writings from the ecumenical council where that opinion is contained should be in the bible. Since it's not in the bible then the bible is either not complete, or the opinion of that council is not valid. Either way that opinion doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

>It wasn't inspired or God-breathed as Paul says of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16. It wasn't written by Enoch. Some random guy just came up with it one day and decided to pretend it was real. Same thing with the Qu'ran, Apocrypha, etc

You have no idea who wrote the book of Enoch (I'll give you a hint- Enoch did). You have no idea why it isn't in the bible. You were just told that you have to believe the bible is the complete and infallible word of God so you do. It's commendable that you do as you're told and don't cause trouble for your church, but if you start arguments with other Christians claiming they have to accept your view then your view isn't just benign, it's heretical.

>>837408

>My question to you is, why do you hate the truth? For God's word is truth according to what Jesus himself said. The inspired word of God is infallible, for not one word of prophecy will fall to the ground unfulfilled.

You just revealed that you're not even a Christian. In accusing me of hating truth, you've accused me of hating God, since God is truth. You're now demanding people believe a blatantly nonsensical opinion accept that opinion or you refuse to consider them as such.

your opinion is nonsensical gibberish, and I haven't even touched on the question- if a book is the word of God, then what is Jesus? My bible says that Jesus is the word of God. And after Jesus was crucified he didn't tell the disciples that he would have a magic book compiled in three hundred years that would contain all truth (in fact that concept is nowhere in the bible), he said the Spirit of Truth would come and lead men to all truth. You can keep you leatherbound paper idol, I prefer the Spirit of God as my guide.

The bible is not the complete and infallible word. If every copy was burned tomorrow humanity would still find God because the word of God is written into the fabric of reality.

>>837435

The scriptures are a record of that very Spirit of God. You can not have one without the other or claim you heard the Spirit and then contradict his very words. Nor does God contradict himself: "If we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself." - 2 Timothy 2:13

And if you actually heard the Spirit, you'd know for certain that he'd tell you to read the scriptures first before bombarding him with questions he already has answered. You're no better than a Joseph Smith or Muhammad who makes their own nonsense up, as an excuse to ignore the scriptures. This goes beyond Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox too. The Spirit told the importance of scripture to the Church as early as Justin Martyr to Augustine.. and now to people like me, in this day and age. "Tolle legge". "Take and read." You lie if you say if you've heard the Spirit of God and then he told you not to read the scriptures. You have no experience with him and have never met him.

Also, Jesus and the Apostles themselves did this with the Hebrew scriptures: How much more so their own words? You berate the Lord himself for his own use of scripture and the authority he gave it.

Nor is Jesus called the "Word" of God. He is the Logos or Memra (Aramaic). The definition of the Logos means far, far, far, FAR more than "word". English is a different language and doesn't have a suitable substitute that encapsulates all of it. You'd know this if you actually stopped wasting time and learned more.

>>830186

Dogmatically there are still plenty of differences (otherwise they would not still be in schism), but if you were to compare them to prots, you might as well say they're the same.

>>837434

>I should have been more clear, I wanted a citation saying that the bible specifically was God's word.

You asked for a citation that God would refine his word and it would be preserved from generation to generation, that's what I gave. But I can answer your question now as well.

> 2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

>20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

>21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

There you go.

>If the bible is the complete and infallible word of God, then the writings from the ecumenical council where that opinion is contained should be in the bible.

Why exactly is that?

>Since it's not in the bible then the bible is either not complete,

False

>or the opinion of that council is not valid.

True, but it doesn't have to be. They added apocrypha, but if they had only included the actual books of the Bible then it would have been accurate. You err however in assuming that the composition of the Bible was in any way dependent on this action. The proof is that we don't use the Bible with apocrypha, hence their opinion on what should be contained does not influence us. Although hypothetically, if they had not included apocrypha, we still would not be depending on their opinion in the first place.

>You have no idea why it isn't in the bible.

It is self-evidently not inspired.

>You were just told that you have to believe the bible is the complete and infallible word of God so you do.

Yes, told by God.

>but if you start arguments with other Christians

According to you, is everyone who claims to be Christian actually one? Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

>claiming they have to accept your view

Did I claim you have to accept the truth or merely claim that the truth is the only thing that is true and people believing in lies are believing in lies? I haven't placed a gun to anyone forcing them to accept any views. The facts are in favor of the truth; there is an objective truth; and the popular notion of relativism, that everyone is equally correct is wrong. If you want to accuse me of forcing people to believe when I haven't done so I've only forcefully stated the facts, then you can accuse me. I will gladly accept any mistreatment for standing for the truth.

>then your view isn't just benign, it's heretical.

So you think advocating for the truth and not being a relativist who lets everyone think what they want is heretical. But isn't that very assertion a truth-claim?

Haven't you just contraverted your own claim that you should never claim anyone has to accept your view? When you say something is heretical, isn't that you claiming someone has to accept your view? Aren't you contradicting yourself??

>>837435

>You just revealed that you're not even a Christian.

You just said nobody should start arguments claiming they have to accept viewpoints. What is with this change of heart all of a sudden? And I vehemently disagree, as you haven't shown your claim from Scripture.

>In accusing me of hating truth, you've accused me of hating God, since God is truth.

>>837380

You just compared sacred Scripture with the pope in this post… So yes, you have hated truth in that post. The question remains to be seen whether you will answer for what you've done at this time or not.

>>837516

>There you go.

You've proven nothing and don't even realize it.I could go round and around with you andyou'd still never acknowledge the simple truth that wrecks your argument. The "word of God" and the bible are two different things. Sure, the bible is the word of God, but it's not all of God's word. You keep trying to quote the bible to defend your position but it doesn't work because your position isn't found in the bible.

>If the bible is the complete and infallible word of God, then the writings from the ecumenical council where that opinion is contained should be in the bible.

>Why exactly is that?

Because that's the only place where that belief is found. It isn't found in the bible. The bible was compiled 250-300 years after the last books of the new testament were written. The scriptures talking about the Word of God aren't talking about the bible because the bible didn't even exist for hundreds-=thousands of years after the death of the writers.

The simple truth is that you're wrong and if you had eyes to see and ears to hear you would be able to see that. However, there's a more important thing to consider- that belief you have isn't necessary for salvation. You can keep believing that and it won't prevent you from being saved. Or you could never believe it and you can still be saved. You can keep your opinion but when you start insisting other Christians have to adopt it or they "hate God" you are doing an evil thing. You are acting on behalf of the devil to divide brothers with trivialities. How can you be a Christian when some abstract argument matters more to you than than the love of God?

Every time you start an argument about your belief and demand that others adhere to it you are spitting in God's face and openly showing that you have no love for the body of Christ. You are doing the exact same thing that catholics do when they claim there is no salvation outside of their church. You've been trained by your leaders to divide and you need to break the conditioning

>>837437

>The scriptures are a record of that very Spirit of God. You can not have one without the other or claim you heard the Spirit and then contradict his very words.

No, I contradict the words of your leaders, not God. Those words you keep repeating aren't found in the bible.

>You're no better than a Joseph Smith or Muhammad

We can disagree on this issue and it really doesn't matter. What matters is your habit of condemning anyone that disagrees with you. You show that you have no love of your neighbor within you. If you were to die at this moment you would be rejected by God and not because of your opinion but for your manifest hatred of other Christians. You are engaged in evil behavior and you have evil intent. You are an evil man, but you don't have to be. Repent for your hatred of your brother and God will forgive you.

I pray that God bring you into the fold of the elect. That he gives you no peace until you stop doing the work of the devil to destroy the body of Christ. I pray that you don't die in this evil and reprobate state but are saved from it by the Grace of God. But if you are a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction then I pray that God brings your destruction upon you soon so that your poison doesn't continue to divide the body of Christ.

>>837546

>Sure, the bible is the word of God, but it's not all of God's word.

Aha, but God said he would preserve his word, anon. We've been over this. See Psalm 12:6-7, 119:160, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 59:21, etc. Why do you think he only preserved some of it? No he definitely preserved all of it. Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

>You keep trying to quote the bible to defend your position but it doesn't work because your position isn't found in the bible.

Do you even understand my position to begin with? It IS the Bible. By definition. I want only that you would start to believe in God's word so that you would see these things and join the light.

>The bible was compiled 250-300 years after the last books of the new testament were written.

So the word of God didn't exist until some point you think? Or did it exist all along and has been revealed without anything being lost since the moment it was inspired?

>The scriptures talking about the Word of God aren't talking about the bible because the bible didn't even exist for hundreds-=thousands of years after the death of the writers.

Oh ok, I'm talking about the Scriptures found in the Bible. They've existed in this world since they were each individually inspired and God has known them all along and chose to reveal his word in due time.

> Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

>3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

>You can keep your opinion but when you start insisting other Christians have to adopt it or they "hate God" you are doing an evil thing.

You compared the sacred Scripture to the pope in your above post, so of course that was you reviling God's word first. I'm free to call that out, and anything in the name of defending God's word I would be willing to suffer persecution for. You can attack me, talk bad about me behind my back, bring false accusations to bring me down. Do it all. I'm still gonna say what I'll say on behalf of the truth.

>How can you be a Christian when some abstract argument matters more to you than than the love of God?

What is the "abstract argument" you're referring to here? The belief that God's word is identified with the sacred Scriptures which He has graciously and providentially preserved? The belief that false prophets are constantly trying to come in between us and our God with false prophesyings? What is this abstract argument that I'm holding that is so offensive to you?

>>837549

It's like I'm really listening to another to Constantine the Great or something, so busy trying to unite everyone and steamroll over the truth in the process that he includes the Arians and other heretics. He lets them have center stage and blaspheme God. Have you not read the word of God in Galatians?

>Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Or what about the word of God here?

> 1 Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

> 1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

>4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

>5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

> 2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

>15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

>16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

>17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you

The people you're talking about that have rejected Scripture have thereby rejected the real word of God. So you soft-talked some false words not from God, and that's why you're here now denigrating the Holy Bible by comparing it to the Pope? That is hatred of the truth and replacement of the Bible, with lies. Check out 2 Peter chapter 2 sometime. Also Acts 20:28-32, particularly the last verse.

>>837549

>We can disagree on this issue and it really doesn't matter.

It matters to you. It doesn't matter to me. You're the one that's going to court without a lawyer to defend you. I'm telling you where you can hire one, but you're stubbornly refusing his counsel. That's no skin off my back. Only yours. I'm only obligated to tell you about him, and now business is done.

>>837585

You know people can tell that you're just a brainwash victim? Because you can't understand my objection to your opinion. I've said it multiple times now and you never even responded to it, you just avoid it.You can't respond to it because you're not even able to consider it without your head exploding.

Here, let's try this one last time-

The belief that the bible is the complete and infallible word of God is not in the bible. The term "word of God" and "bible" aren't synonyms. When one of the writers of scripture in the bible says the Word of God is eternal, they aren't talking about the bible and couldn't have been because the bible didn't exist until hundreds of years later.

That belief isn't in the bible, it's in ecumenical councils like the Nicene creed. When you claim that decision by an ecumenical council is the word of God, you are claiming that the word of God exists in sources other than the bible and in so doing, you invalidate your theory completely.

You're theory depends on a catch 22. It's self-invalidating.

I've said everything to you that I want to say. You can respond if you want, but I'm done talking to you. I wish you luck

>>837601

>When you claim that decision by an ecumenical council is the word of God,

The Bible is the word of God, and the word of God is self-evident truth. How else do you think anyone came to the belief in it in the first place? There was no ecumenical council. God himself made sure that his word was preserved, it says so right in Scripture. See the part you have to let go is the idea that councils had anything to do with this.

Those guys just came later trying to claim credit for something, and they messed up by adding apocrypha as well on top of that. They have nothing to do with why we have the Bible. Further, until you drop that idea, you will continue to be deceived and led astray by your own wanton lusts. As many others have. If anything they were the main reason why the Bible was stifled over time because they tried to spread their fake versions. It may be a comforting lie to you perhaps, but it is still just that, a lie. It's plainly obvious because the Bible does not include the apocrypha which the councils fallaciously tried to add. How did we end up with a Bible that differs from them, anon? Because it pre-exists all else and God ensured its preservation in purity, just as the prophecies in Scripture suggest.

> Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

> Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

> Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

> 3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

It's clear we're not using the councils' bible because they added apocrypha. I don't know how much clearer that could be. We've always had the word of God since the time God himself inspired it. How can you claim to believe God inspired his word and did all of these supernatural signs as shown there but then was unable to prevent it from being lost? Scripture says it will never be lost. That means even before the so-called councils. Christ said "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." You're just doubting scripture. The proof is that you tried to compare it to the pope earlier, and according to your earlier posts you are simply trying to override it with false prophesyings. That's the reason you deride Scripture because you want to replace it with your false prophesyings. You don't like it because it has greater authority than you, so you try to knock it off. It's very plain to see that for anyone here.

>>837601

>You know people can tell that you're just a brainwash victim? Because you can't understand my objection to your opinion.

Brainwashed by whom? God himself? That's fine with me. It was God himself who has baptized me with his Holy Spirit, after believing in the Christ witnessed in scripture (and I'm not alone). It's no opinion. It's power. You're free to partake too, instead of living in this small world where you perceive people have mere opinions.

I doubt that you've even read an ecumenical council's words in full. They witness to the scriptures repeatedly. Every saint in them also has multiple quotes attesting to the scriptures. I just pointed this out in another thread here: >>837556

Hey brothers, Christ is called the Word of God because he is promised in the old scriptures, He’s Gods “Word” his “Truth”.

The bible is the Word of God, Christ is fulfillment of that word. Hence his title.

>>837623

>The Bible is the word of God, and the word of God is self-evident truth. How else do you think anyone came to the belief in it in the first place? There was no ecumenical council. God himself made sure that his word was preserved, it says so right in Scripture. See the part you have to let go is the idea that councils had anything to do with this.

>Those guys just came later trying to claim credit for something, and they messed up by adding apocrypha as well on top of that.

You don't have to disparage the Councils to defend the scriptures. Nor did they necessarily add the apocrypha. None of the Ecumenical councils made definitive declarations on the Old Testament canon. Only Roman Catholics did much later in the 1500s. Others simply used the Apocrypha because it was included in the Septuagint copies. It was tacit acceptance, simply out of respect of what was given. Not a formal declaration. But as for the Councils, they defended the scriptures. This anon doesn't know what he's talking about and is just another larper. St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Jerusalem were instrumental at the Council of Nicaea, for example, and they say this of the scriptures:

“In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures.” -Saint Cyril of Jerusalem

“For the Scriptures were spoken and written by God.” -St. Athanasius

St. Cyril tells you himself to not even listen to him if he contradicts the scriptures!

>>837669

The king james bible used to include the apocrypha between the old and new testament. Bibles should still do that because there are writings that the council couldn't agree on but which were widely held by Christians to be scripture before the bible was compiled.

When it comes right down to it, there were books which Jesus and the apostles considered to be the inspired word of God but which the nicene council rejected. Why are we supposed to believe, Jesus or some clergy jockeying for the power of heading the official state church of the roman empire? Ever since the Nicene creed the church has been like the DMV or the IRS, just a department of the state protecting state power.

>>837848

>Bibles should still do that because there are writings that the council couldn't agree on

It's not based on councils.

>widely held by Christians to be scripture

It's not based on what is or was widely held.

>before the bible was compiled.

The word of God was decided by God in eternity past (Ps. 119:89, 119:160) and revealed in due time (Deut. 29:29, Psalm 119:160, Titus 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:1-2) and inspired (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:19-21) and preserved (Matthew 24:35, John 10:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25) according to his will even to this day.

>When it comes right down to it, there were books which Jesus and the apostles considered to be the inspired word of God but which the nicene council rejected.

It's not based on councils.

>Ever since the Nicene creed the church has been like the DMV or the IRS, just a department of the state protecting state power.

Not true. Please leave this thread if you can't accept the truth.