/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

How about you stop worshiping Mary as God?

>What kind of union is this? It is above all interior; it is the union of her very being with the being of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells in her, lives in her, from the first instant of her existence, and he will do so always, throughout eternity… This uncreated Immaculate Conception conceives divine life immaculately in the soul of Mary, his Immaculate Conception. The virginal womb of her body, too, is reserved for him who conceives there in time—everything material comes about according to time—the divine life of the God-Man.

>Maximilian Kolbe

These are all real faults people have noticed in Catholicism. By telling us to stop saying these you are essentially telling us to shut up and accept Catholic faults and dogma. These are all valid reasons why people can’t accept Catholicism. Are you going to tell us to throw our bibles away and just listen to “magic people” like the pope?

Catholics ask the pope to bless their roseries every time they get a chance, so they do think that he’s perfect.

Catholics bow to idols all the time. Pope John Paul II idol, and others.

Catholics do worship Mary by giving her praise under the guise that she’s the Holy Spirit. Also not biblical, even after your twisting of bible passages, but you guys are right about the Holy Spirit being female, which used to be biblical before books where removed and words mistranslated.

Catholics say they believe in salvation through faith but that’s a lie, since they believe you must be a part of their church which is a “work”. They never accept one can have faith and not be in their church. You must do the works required to be a member.

Your asking us to lobotomize ourselves and accept Catholicism’s irredeemable faults. You listed all the good points that a catholic needs to ponder on and then want people to throw those points away? C’mon. Wake up please. Looks like your ears heard the message and arguments against your denomination.

>>839216

I think OP is also implying that some posters come immediately from a position that lacks charity, which does a complete disservice to the fostering of Christian fellowship. This isn't an ecumenical position that I am advocating, but one that is simply born out of kindness. God bless you, Ex brother. Good to see you around.

>>839222

God bless you as well brother.

I’ll keep what you said in mind. I forget about nurturing fellowship here sometimes. It helps knowing it’s on other mind’s as well. I’ll do my best. My old personality bleeds in at times but I promise to do my best.

Yes let's discuss the issues in their official terms

Catholics believe in earned salvation

>2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

>2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

>2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."

But the Bible says

<Ephesians 2:8-9 King James Version (KJV) 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.

<Romans 4:5 King James Version (KJV) 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

>>839214

>Veneration IS worship

>Veneration IS worship

>Veneration IS worship

>Veneration IS worship

>Veneration IS worship

>>839222

That guy is an enemy of God who refuses to accept the Scripture.

John 16:13

>Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

>Good to see you around.

Yet see 2 John 9-11

>Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

—

Therefore it's not good to see him still around. He should stop spreading blood chilling heresy and openly blaspheming the name of God, denying the record that God gave of his Son and what He said in John 16:13. The concept of "shekhinah" female spirit goddess is of satan; it's a deceiving false god that openly denies and blasphemes God's word.

If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed, O Lord Come, amen.

>>839222

I think this post is the most Christian of the responses. I know I've been guilty of criticizing the catholic church in a way that displays no empathy for the catholics that read it. Should non-catholics even mention their statue worship and other pagan aspects of their religion or should we just keep quiet about it and pray that God brings them revelation? I don't know the answer to that. I know that if you rebuke friends there is a much greater chance that they'll listen than if you rebuke strangers that believe you're their enemy,.

>>839231

>The concept of "shekhinah" female spirit goddess is of satan;

You're right about that. It comes from rabbinic literature and has its basis in the talmud. God is male, the being with mixed male and female attributes is baphomet, who is a god of the jews.

>>839226

>Catholics believe in earned salvation

And they have support for that biblically. God requires Christian behavior and that's written all through the bible. It's not the basis of salvation, but it is the fruit of salvation.

I don't think there's enough disagreement between prots and catholics to make an issue of this. it's a trivial argument that's really just semantics. Church leaders on both sides have exploited a small disagreement to create a huge schism and those leaders will face judgment for that but there's no reason why we should.

>>839226

Not OP, but my question is not worthy of its own thread.

How do you see John 14:23-24?

>>839236

>It's not the basis of salvation, but it is the fruit of salvation.

This is the Protestant position. As demonstrated, this is not the Roman Catholic position.

The official RCC stance is summarized as saved by grace through faith, stay saved and earn it by works.

>>839237

>How do you see John 14:23-24?

I observe the biblical distinction between an instruction and a requirement for salvation.

Sola fide isn't antinomianism. First you're saved, then you manifest works of the spirit.

Same situation as in James 2, faith without works is dead. The works still do not contribute in earning salvation, that would contradict scripture elsewhere.

The synthesis of these several passages is called systematic theology, and considering the inspiration of scripture it can't be in self contradiction.

>>839231

>>839234

I am not saying The almighty God is a mix of male and female. That is what trinitarians constantly hear in my beliefs. I’ll elaborate.

The Almighty God is Father. The Holy Spirit is His wife, The Mother. Jesus Christ is Their Son. Trinitarians believe that they are one being, which is a false doctrine and because you believe the Bible is not unmolested it’s impossible to reason with a trinitarian. One must be unreasonable to believe God died but not really then never left earth because the Holy Spirit is always with us.

Yes God is powerful and we can not understand all His power and all His ways, this is true. But trinitarians use that excuse for everything and God never intended for His children to be so confused about Him. The trinity is the most confusing belief system in Christianity. What I’m preaching is the lost data that simplifies all things in christian doctrine. A Father, A Mother, A Son. The Three members of the original Family, the very first family in all of existence. They are One Blood/DNA (“One Body” due to poor translation and the need of false prophets to keep their sheep in confusion and under the belief that nothing can be understood). God designed all of creation in His image, His way of life. That is why He created a man and a woman and why life can only exist through the two. One man and one woman fusing together forever producing offspring and living in eternity. The answers are under our noses.

It is not Gods fault that satan tries to mimic this by creating false gods with similar structures.

>>839241

>This is the Protestant position. As demonstrated, this is not the Roman Catholic position.

>The official RCC stance is summarized as saved by grace through faith, stay saved and earn it by works.

once again, you are just arguing semantics. Everyone agrees that you have to be Christlike if you are saved. any further argument on why or how this is done is just pilpul. it's arguing for the sake of argument. And it's an utterly trivial argument. The deeper issue is how willing you are to further divide the church over trivial issues. Aren't love and charity more important considerations?

"A house divided against itself cannot stand" you are willing to destroy Christianity in it's entirety for a totally trivial little argument. What are your works here? Divide, argue, create contention, etc. Instead of harping on about the importance of good works, why don't you actually engage in good works and stop trying to divide the body of Christ for no good reason.

>>839248

1 Timothy 6:3-5

> 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.

>how willing you are to further divide the church

Those that went out from us made manifest that they were not of us. There is one truth and we are to speak sound doctrine. It doesn't matter if the entire world is wrong, God will save those who actually believe on Him. Those who dispute these points should be withdrawn from. What concord hath Christ with Belial, as it says.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13

> 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

> 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

> 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

>you are willing to destroy Christianity in it's entirety for a totally trivial little argument.

It's not about political unity: that in and of itself is a false doctrine that is being implied. A compromised unity is false one. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

>>839226

"Not of works": as of our own growth, or from ourselves; but as from grace, and grace is a gift of God.

Grace is taken in two ways: first, as a habitual gift of God. Secondly, as a help from God, Who moves the soul to good. Now taking grace in the first sense, a certain preparation of grace is required for it, since a form can only be in disposed matter. But if we speak of grace as it signifies a help from God to move us to good, no preparation is required on man's part, that, as it were, anticipates the Divine help, but rather, every preparation in man must be by the help of God moving the soul to good. And thus even the good movement of the free-will, whereby anyone is prepared for receiving the gift of grace is an act of the free-will moved by God. And thus man is said to prepare himself, according to Prov. 16:1: "It is the part of man to prepare the soul"; yet it is principally from God, Who moves the free-will. Hence it is said that man's will is prepared by God, and that man's steps are guided by God.

>>839243

Absolutely heretical.

It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him. For it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin. And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a

"principle," and of what is "from the principle." Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess.

Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father "through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

[-]

>>839248

Theology involves semantics. This is a religion based on a sacred text.

>>839261

You're not addressing the issue. We're not discussing free will, we're discussing the role of works in relation to salvation.

>>839216

It's pathetic how you winch at the thought of not being able to use your strawmans to attack God's church.

>>839277

Are you ill? Facts are strawmen now? I don’t think you know how to use your senses. I don’t think you have free will. I think anonymity gives you courage to sound foolish without the shame that must accompany it. I don’t think you have any real friends. I think your own family can’t even understand you. In fact I don’t think you know what love is.

If your gonna call these clear facts strawmen, then you have many serious underlying issues, because that’s a sign of not having the ability to reason. I think you’ve taken a liking to me, strangely. Was I the first person you tried to interact with today?

You build statues to her, talk to her, ask her for prayer, come up with absurd titles, fine up with absurd mythologies and more. You may not call it worship, but it is.

>here is the catholic teaching contradicting the Bible >> 834194

>hurr durrp, you just don't understand catholic theology

>>839241

>I observe the biblical distinction between an instruction and a requirement for salvation.

I don't get it. For example, the requirements and instructions to baking a cake are the same.

What is the difference between a requirement and an instruction?

>>839289

An instruction could be a requirement but it isn't in this case. The salvation precedes the works, but salvation will necessarily result in good works.

>>839293

I should rephrase

The instructions are requirements for Christians. They are not prerequisites for salvation.

Analogy

A loving father tells his son to mow the lawn. He is instructed to do it, but the father doesn't view mowing the lawn as a prerequisite to feeding his son.

]>>839281

OP is accurate on correcting Protestant lies about Catholic Theology. Just because you're too prideful to admit means nothing. Go LARP elsewhere.

>>839281

Don’t bother telling me what to do. I’ll be here for a while thank you very much. In all honesty, I think you and the anon that laughed today are in fact OP himself, since OP’s ID# only has one post in a thread he created. No one understood what that anon said, and cowardice is common among people who demand you kneel to their doctrines.

>>839297

Your bracket threw me off. This, >>839301, was meant for you.

>>839243

Wow, that is blasphemy on a new level Do you even believe the bible?

But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.[John 14:26]

But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

[John 16:13]

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings.[Romans 8:26]

HE HE HE HE. HIMself. There are no bounds to your depravity in twisting the word and the nature of God.

>>839216

>Catholics ask the pope to bless their roseries every time they get a chance, so they do think that he’s perfect.

No need to be perfect to bless items on God's behalf. The apostles did it and healed the sick and they weren't perfect.

Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that when Peter came, his shadow at the least, might overshadow any of them, and they might be delivered from their infirmities.

[Acts of Apostles 5:15]

So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.

[Acts of Apostles 19:12]

And whithersoever he entered, into towns or into villages or cities, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought him that they might touch but the hem of his garment: and as many as touched him were made whole.

[Mark 6:56]

>Catholics bow to idols all the time. Pope John Paul II idol, and others.

Bowing does not mean worship. let's not be obtuse here. There are many examples of respect being shown to men and angels alike and these pleased God and are not to be considered worship.

And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of the city. And seeing them, he rose up and went to meet them: and worshipped prostrate to the ground,

[Genesis 19:1]

And let peoples serve thee, and tribes worship thee: be thou lord of thy brethren, and let thy mother's children bow down before thee. Cursed be he that curseth thee: and let him that blesseth thee be filled with blessings.

[Genesis 27:29]

And he went forward and bowed down with his face to the ground seven times until his brother came near. [4] Then Esau ran to meet his brother, and embraced him: and clasping him fast about the neck, and kissing him, wept.

[Genesis 33:3-4]

I could go on.

The old and new testaments are replete with examples of objects being imparted power by faith.

>>839216

>Catholics do worship Mary by giving her praise under the guise that she’s the Holy Spirit

This is untrue. If you want to state actual catholic beliefs and then argue them ok. until then, give the mother of God her due respect.

>>839222

>>839323

Thank you for understanding, friends

>selectively ignore genuine arguments

>deliberately engage fallacious arguments

>repeat x316

catholics on /christian/ everyone

>>839332

But it is not the catholic church whom says it, but the Holy Spirit. And who are you to question the likes of Angel Gabriel, whom graced her with a greeting reserved for one's Lord or King, a greeting such as was given her would only be given to one's superior. Are you superior to Angel Gabriel, whom deferred to the BVM?

28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

[Luke 1:28]

And what's this about Mary not being the mother of God. Is Jesus not God?

And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: [42] And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. [43] And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

[Luke 1:41-43]

Or maybe what you mean to say is that Jesus is not your Lord? It sure seems that way. It seems like you are doing everything in your meager power to separate yourself from the church that God founded by being completely incapable of showing respect for the mother of your Lord. I sure hope you don't treat your friend's mothers like this. And if those friends whose mother you mistreat were your LOrd, how would they see you come judgement day?

Does the below statement exclude protestants?

Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed (except protestants).

[Luke 1:48]

>>839330

Dude, I was interested in Lutheranism ( My dad is Lutheran) But it did not strike me as the true Church, due to among other things, reciting the apostles creed…with Catholic in it. Kind of wish I never gave money to them. They had good pancakes though.

>>839335

how things "strike you" isn't a valid way to engage in theology

catholic is to roman catholic what democracy is to the DPRK

Catholic Is the Only Catholic. I am shocked you do not confess before Communion. I knew that was wrong, If it were really Christ one would bow before. But Like much of Protestantism it is a farce.

>It is a symbol of his flesh "

Than why did Jesus tell the Crown that they must drink His blood and feed on His flesh. NOTE: The word for eat, does not mean eat…it means gnaw. You must GNAW on His flesh. Can one gnaw on a symbol

>>839336

Catholic is to Roman Catholic, as shattered glass is to Lutheranism and all Protestantism. I figured you guys cannot be true, because you are TOO fragmented. All you can agree on is you hate the Church… but not how or why. So you split and fragment like a rotten tree, into oblivion. Then you get sect like the Mormons and JW's who are completely bonkers

>>839226

What really show to me the weakness of you guys' arguments is that you always start with a false premise "what catholics believe" and then go to battle with strawmen. What is plain to see for anyone who makes even a cursory reading of the scripture is that you always stop short of reading all of in, in context. Which leads me to believe that you have no chance in heck of ever actually convincing anyone of your point and that you do it out of pure masturbatory pride.

Why we believe in the meritorious nature of grace and why we don;t like to insult our own God by spitting in his face:

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works.

[Matthew 16:27]

Works

Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

Works

Wonder not at this; for the hour cometh, wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God. [29] And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.

[John 5:28-29]

Works

Who will render to every man according to his works. [7] To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: [8] But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation.

[Romans 2:6-8]

Works

Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: [13] Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. [14] If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. [15] If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. [16] Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Works

And therefore we labour, whether absent or present, to please him. [10] For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil.

[2 Corinthians 5:9-10]

Labour

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

[Apocalypse (Re1velation) 20:2]

Works

Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works.

[Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:12]

Works

Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and moth consume, and where thieves break through and steal. [20] But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal.

[Matthew 6:19-20]

Works

He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man. [42] And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.

[Matthew 10:41-42]

>>839226

Works

And there came a certain poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing. [43] And calling his disciples together, he saith to them: Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all they who have cast into the treasury. [44] For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want cast in all she had, even her whole living.

[Mark 12:42-44]

More works….are you even getting this yet>? I can keep going you know…

But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind; [14] And thou shalt be blessed, because they have not wherewith to make thee recompense: for recompense shall be made thee at the resurrection of the just.

[Luke 14:13-14]

WOOOOORRRRRKKKKKKKSSSSSSS

This man saw in a vision manifestly, about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in unto him, and saying to him: Cornelius. [4] And he, beholding him, being seized with fear, said: What is it, Lord? And he said to him: Thy prayers and thy alms are ascended for a memorial in the sight of God.

[Acts of Apostles 10:3-4]

WOOKI WOOKIE WORKS WORKS !

So yes, catholics believ in works and i think we are justified, pun intended. worki work work?

>>839336

When defending sola scriptura, the Protestant will predictably appeal to his sole authority—Scripture. This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself. One cannot prove the inspiration of a text from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the Koran, and other books claim inspiration. This does not make them inspired. One must prove the point outside of the text itself to avoid the fallacy of circular reasoning.

When defending sola scriptura, the Protestant will predictably appeal to his sole authority—Scripture. This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself. One cannot prove the inspiration of a text from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the Koran, and other books claim inspiration. This does not make them inspired. One must prove the point outside of the text itself to avoid the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Thus, the question remains: how do we know the various books of the Bible are inspired and therefore canonical? And remember: the Protestant must use the principle of sola scriptura in the process.

>>839341

It's even more ludicrous than that. It'e like they stole the book from the writer ripped out the parts they didn't like and then argued with the writer about what the book really meant. You kind of just have to shake your head at the insanity of it. Imagine taking the volkswagon manual and, tearing out some pages and then screaming your theories about jetta engineering at people in the showroom.

>>839341

>When defending sola scriptura, the Protestant will predictably appeal to his sole authority—Scripture.

Frustrating, isn't it? The argument against sola scriptura is very simple and can't be logically contested and yet you've never changed a single prot's mind in all the arguments on the subject you've ever had.

Now you know how prots feel when criticizing your worship of statues and your deification of Mary.

>>839344

I'm not going to discuss with a pagan that denies the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I'm not a teenager searching for answers. Go try that s— with homeless runaways after you've fed them cheap cooler and weed. They might be impressed. This is a christian board.

>>839339

what a silly little argument. Both catholics and protestants agree that they should do good works. Both Catholics and protestants believe that they are saved through grace. Arguing further is just splitting hairs. It's like listening to an old married couple that argue over everything just for the sake of argument.

>>839347

>a pagan that denies the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

bearing false witness is a sin you know. You want to win this argument a lot more than I do. You're so determined that you're even willing to go to hell for it.

>>839346

> Now you know how prots feel when criticizing your worship of statues and your deification of Mary.

>Literally arguing with a ghost.

If you at least represented our beliefs accurately you might come closer to the truth. I'll give you a tip. When people disengage, it's not because you've heroically won some kind of imaginary battle, it's because people are tied of your s—.

>>839349

>To the heretic, simply quoting scripture becomes a silly argument.

>>839350

Thought you were merely a pagan but i see you are a blasphemer. that kind of blaspheme are usually uttered only by those whose only hope for respite from the flames remains in bringing other souls down with them. Run back to daddy, Wormwood.

>>839355

No i will not. i could give you another 15 verses that discredit faith alone but i shall not cast my pearls before swine. WE have the same scripture bu the chasm is unbridgeable. We'll have to leave it up to the Lord.

>>839357

>Moan about misrepresentation

>Insult and refuse someone who's engaging in legitimate conversation

Classic

>>839320

>Bowing does not mean worship. let's not be obtuse here. There are many examples of respect being shown to men and angels alike and these pleased God and are not to be considered worship.

>And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of the city. And seeing them, he rose up and went to meet them: and worshipped prostrate to the ground,

The angel John saw in revelation refused to allow John to bow to him, he told him to stand up.

Cornelius Bowed to Peter and peter refused to allow it and told him to stand.

I don’t care what lot did and lots actions are not ones to be made an example of. Lots the same man who offered up his daughters to the violent crowd in sodom and Gomorrah to be raped by them, his virgin daughters. Lot was raped by his own daughters later as well because he was made too drink too much. That whole family was wacked out of their minds, they did many things that were not ok. Maybe sodom and Gomorrah rubbed off on them too much. You are not reading the Bible and applying it the way you should. Everyone can find a vice that someone in the Bible is practicing and then claim it’s ok because that person in the Bible is doing it. But getting a bigger picture is what must be done. The bigger picture shows that one must never bow to anyone or any object. Only to Jesus Christ and God.

>>839353

Do you really believe that the way you are acting is how Christians are supposed to act? It's not, but since you've displayed your character I can see why you have no problem following pedophiles and satanists and worshipping statues.

>>839363

Please just leave. You aren't doing anyone any favors by spreading your gnostic false god here. Please stop whoring out all of your false gods like you have been doing to us on here. >>839231

>Matthew 28

> 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

> 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

>>839436

No.

>>839294

Yet a rebellious son will soon find out his love for father is waning, while it grows in the obedient son.

I see loving God as salvation, but I don't understand what you mean by it.

>>839441

It's a rough analogy. I'm only illustrating the distinctions between instructions which are prerequisites and instructions which are not.

>>839436

For years I’ve heard people push the modern version of the trinity. Telling me to accept it although it’s completely irrational. For years I’ve been judged by “Christians” who act like they understand it but don’t and judge others for refusing to adopt a belief that they themselves do not understand and take pride in relinquished free will. You have a church you go to and enjoy brotherly love in, yes? Well your kind has made it clear that I’m not welcomed there when I’ve only had honest questions about the matter of the trinity.

The Bible has been molested and anyone speaking the truth given to them by The Holy Spirit is not welcomed in any church and now you want this site all to yourself as well?

Let me tell you something. Ever since I’ve come on here my life has turned toward the better. I’ve never had so many blessings. I’ve never been given new information by The Holy Spirit quicker in my entire life. Now that I’m sharing I’m getting new information. I’ve never felt so fulfilled in my life. I’m definitely not getting the message by God that I must stop. I’m being told I’m doing great actually. I’ve never felt the need to tell anyone to leave and not come back, but you certainly are. Who’s the one that feels burdened, me or you? Who’s the one God’s blessing, me or you? Does Christ not see what’s happening here? Is He asleep? Of course not. I have more conviction in my faith than you. I’m stronger than you. If you only knew how weak I used to be, then you would know none of this strength is me. I would’ve never been able to keep at it and actually have more energy than before in the face of verbal persecution if it was my power keeping me going, I credit it all to Jesus. I’m blessed.

This whole time I’ve been praying to Christ to stop me if I’m truly going against His will. He pushes me to do more instead. The Bible has been molested sir. That is why Christianity is always fighting itself, the contradictions in the Bible manifest in arguments that go in circles and I’m providing the truth that The Father has given me that will bring peace to this board and unite us all, and I’m not the only one. The funniest part is I don’t even know fully yet what God’s plan is for me being here.

>>839444

Prerequisite for what? Instructions are instructions.

>>839456

Prerequisite for salvation

>>839468

Do you think everyone wants to be with the Father? If not, I don't see how we may speak of prerequisites as in a checklist, which seems to be your inclination but correct me if I'm mistaken.

>>839436

>Please just leave.

if you don't want to listen to the guy then just filter him. click the arrow next to his name>add filter>name. He could just start posting anonymously but he's too narcissistic to do that so you'll never have to read another post of his.

If you don't filter him then stop complaining about him because you've chosen to read his posts.

>>839474

You're not getting what I'm saying. I am saying justification is by faith alone, your works do not contribute. You took the analogy in an unintended direction.

>>839480

I don't follow.

Justified from what and into what?

>>839726

https://biblehub.com/greek/1344.htm

https://www.gotquestions.org/justification.html

The basis for the Protestantisms of 'Faith Alone' and 'Once Justified, Always Justified' are perhaps most simply contradicted and refuted by Galatians 5:19-21.

>Galatians 5:19-21

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury,

idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects,

envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the Kingdom of God.

Saint Paul emphatically warns the believers that those who commit these grave sins shall not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. This verse refutes absolutely both 'Faith Alone' and 'Once Justified, Always Justified.'

It proves that a believer can lose his salvation, thus dissolving 'Once Justified, Always Justified.' And it also proves that a believer can lose his salvation through grave sins; that is, for his deeds, and not exclusively the act of apostasy or the denial of faith; refuting 'Faith Alone.'

A Protestant cannot argue that this passage only applies to false or insincere believers, and not to truely justified believers; for when Saint Paul says "I foretell you, as I have foretold to you" he is speaking directly to the true believers - he gives the warning directly to fellow members of the Body of Christ (Galatians 3:26-27). Thus, there can be no doubt that the statement of Saint Paul applies to true believers.

Some Protestants may argue, in desperation, that the passages of the New Testament that concern the deaths of people for sinful behaviour (such as Romans 8:12-13) only refer to the death of the flesh, and not that true believers can be damned or excluded from the Kingdom of God for those sins. Galatians 5:19-21 refutes this claim without the need for addition or amendment to our argument above.

Although the same truth and doctrine is found elsewhere (Ephesians 5:5-11; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) those other passages describe categories of sinners that are barred from heaven. In the face of these passages, some Protestants will argue, again in desperation, that categories of sinners are listed because a washed, true believer cannot get to the point where he is identified with any of these categories. This argument is disproved by the command of Saint Paul to not be idolaters nor commit fornication (1 Corinthians 10:7-8). Irregardless, Galatians 5:19-21 does not mention categories of sinners but rather lists the sins that will bar you, that is true believers, from heaven, refuting this objection without the need to say more on the subject.

Those who have actually become the sons of God and put on Christ will not inherit the Kingdom of God if they commit grave sins. This is the teaching of the Bible. Anyone who teaches otherwise rejects the teaching of the Bible and teaches a false gospel. 'Faith Alone' and 'Once Justified, Always Justified' are unbiblical lies. And everyone who promotes either is a heretic and a deceiver.

>>839749

There are Protestants who reject osas. Sola fide doesn't depend on it. See methodism.

>>839740

I want you to explain what in the man is being made right, because I want to better understand how you believe.

>>839751

Penal substitutionary atonement. Man has sin, the wages of which are death, but he is forgiven on account of the redemptive work of Jesus.

This is a different topic than sola fide which is what I was explaining before.

>>839757

Did you set out to avoid his argument at all costs? You didn't provide any counterargument to the verse, and actually fell into the arguments that he already expected and countered.

>>839757

>Are you saying God makes mistakes?

I'm not sure what you're talking out. I believe osas, I'm pointing out that sola fide doesn't depend on osas or even necessarily follow from it. Arminianism, methodism, free will Baptists all reject it and are still Protestant.

>>839770

Osas Is false. There are things a person can do and loose their salvation. Osas is a lie. The Bible is clear that no such thing exists for a Christian. We can fall out of Gods favor and He has the authority to blot our names from the book of life depending on our actions. Although he does give us mercy, OSAS is impossible.

>>839768

>You didn't provide any counterargument to the verse, and actually fell into the arguments that he already expected and countered.

If this is true why not prove it? It should be easy to prove if it's true and you're not just saying it as an out. You could say this as a response to literally any argument as a way out. Look at my post, now look at your response. Clearly you are deficient in answers.

>>839770

You believe in multiple truths then. Or that there is a different truth for everybody perhaps. If that's your attitude.

>>839776

In your posts you deny the Son of God and the divinity of the blessed Triune Godhead and for that there is no reason to respond to your claims further. Of course you would deny salvation also, just like all the paganist God-deniers do. That's no surprise.

>>839757

>So then believers are the same as are led by the Spirit of God according to this verse.

Saint Paul does not say merely, As many as live by the Spirit of God, but, "as many as are led by the the Spirit of God," to show that he would have Him use such power over our life as a pilot does over a ship. And it is not the body only, but the soul itself too, that Paul is setting under reins of this sort. For he would not have even that independent, but place its authority also under the power of the Spirit. For lest through a confidence in the Gift of the Font, one should turn negligent of their conversation after it; Paul would say, that even supposing you receive baptism, yet if you are not minded to be "led by the Spirit" afterwards, you lose the dignity bestowed upon you, and the pre-eminence of your adoption.

This is why Paul does not say, As many as have received the Spirit, but, "as many as are led by the Spirit," that is, as many as live up to this all their life long, "they are the sons of God." Then since this dignity was given to the Jews also, for it says, "I said you are Gods, and all of you children of the Most High" (Psalm 82:6); and again, "I have nourished and brought up children" (Isaiah 1:2); and so, "Israel is My first-born" (Exodus 4:22); and Paul says too, "Whose is the adopt" (Romans 9:4).

Paul next asserts the great difference between the latter and former honour. For though the names are the same, he means still, the things are not the same. And of these points he gives a clear demonstration, by introducing a comparison drawn both from the persons so advanced (κατορθούντων) and from what was given them, and from what was to come. And first he shows what they of old had given them. What then was this? "A spirit of bondage" (Romans 8:15).

>>839942

>If this is true why not prove it?

Prove what? Your discordant writing is difficult to parse, and presupposes positions prior to interpretation of Galatians 5:19-21. For instance, your repeated claim that 'God makes mistakes' with regard to election. We are not discussing the remission of sins, but the false doctrine of 'Faith Alone' and 'Once Justified, Always Justified.' It is worth noting that you made no attempt to to justify either of these heresies, passing immediately to my penultimate paragraph.

>>839942

>In your posts you deny the Son of God and the divinity of the blessed Triune Godhead and for that there is no reason to respond to your claims further. Of course you would deny salvation also, just like all the paganist God-deniers do. That's no surprise.

Even I understand how silly osas is. No one in the entire world is devoted to anybody no matter what they do. You might want to believe my beliefs agains osas are void because of other things but your allowing yourself reason to be in denial.

No husband or wife is devoted to their spouse no matter what they do. God is the same with His children. Our relationship with God parallels the marriage arrangement many in many ways. No righteous person would ever be in need of osas to be true, because righteous people don’t plan on sinning grave sins. I think you were confused about what imperfection was and what sin was and what grave sin was that you latched onto the osas belief in order to simplify Christianity.

Would you stick with a spouse no matter what? Would you stay married if your spouse slept with your friends? Even if you forgave the first time or second, would you keep staying no matter how many sins he/she committed against your marriage? Some things are so simply debunked that that one guy who no one tends to agree with even knows the truth. No one is 100% wrong or right on everything. I’m right sometimes Even to people who think I’m wrong all the time. If you believe in osas then you shouldn’t ever take advantage of Christ’s permission for divorce. You should treat your spouse like you want Christ to treat you. You should also forgive every sort of sin against you under the sun. Every sort. Your in denial of the gospel, much more than I am. I suspect it of being manipulated in a few strategic places, maybe several. But you manipulate it in your mind as you go, you call the word of God inerrant yet ignore many versus refuting you.

>>839942

>You believe in multiple truths then.

No goober

Read what I wrote again

>>839753

So an accusation?

>>839982

What?

>>839983

Do you think Christ's redemptive work is the cleaning of acharge or accusation?

>>839985

It's a cleaning of the guilt. The accusation of any man's guiltiness isn't merely an accusation but a fact.

>>839334

Does the angel's greeting to Mary - "Hail, blessed; the Lord is with you" - imply that she was conceived without any trace of sin? This is the interpretation of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Over the centuries, the Church has become aware that Mary, 'cumulated with grace' by God, was redeemed from conception. This is what the dogma of the immaculate conception confesses […] By the grace of God, Mary remained pure of all personal sin throughout her life.

The Catholic interpretation that "full of grace" or "cumulated with grace" means that God redeemed Mary "from conception" and that, "by the grace of God, Mary remained pure of all personal sin throughout her entire life" reveals much ingenuity, but raises four serious problems.

First: the locution "full of grace" is an inaccurate translation based on the Latin Vulgate "gratia plena". Even the Catholic New American Bible correctly translates the original Greek Kecharitomene as "favored". The inaccurate translation of the Latin version became the basis for the idea that Mary had grace extended throughout her life. Such grace would have enabled her to live a sinless life, but this is a teaching alien to Scripture.

Second: the context reveals that the angel's greeting refers only to the state of Mary at that moment, and not throughout her life. It does not confirm that she was full of misfortune from conception to translation. The context shows more properly that Mary was "greatly favored" because God granted her the privilege of giving birth to His Son. In verses 30 and 31, the angel says to Mary: "Mary, you will bear a son, whom you will call by the name of Jesus. Later, Elizabeth greets Mary saying: "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb! (Luke 1:4)

These texts reveal that Mary was greatly favored and blessed because God chose her to beget His Son. As Norval Geldenhuys comments: "God granted her His free and unselfish grace in an exceptional measure, choosing her to be the mother of His Son". Even a superficial reading of the context reveals that the grace she received for the task of being the mother of the Messiah did not guarantee that she would be free from sin throughout her life.

Third, the emphasis on "full of grace" is wrong, since even Catholic apologists recognize that Mary was a sinner in need of redemption. Ludwig Ott says, for example, that Mary "was in need of redemption and was redeemed by Christ". It is biblically unjustifiable to suggest that Mary was exempt from hereditary sins. Rather, it was by God's grace that she received power to overcome sin. Finally, the same term for "grace" [charito] applies to believers in general. In his excellent treatise on Mariology entitled The Cult of the Virgin, Miller and Samples points out that the Greek term for "full of grace"-charito-"is applied to believers in Ephesians 1:6 without indicating perfection or impeccability. Therefore, there is nothing in Luke 1:28 that establishes the doctrine of the immaculate conception. The only inference needed is that Mary was favored in a unique way to be the mother of her Lord."

>>839353

Here is a clear example of how the average Catholic reacts when confronted with Biblical truth. The same thing that we see here happened to Luther when he had to defend his faith. Catholics are so entrenched in their tradition that Jesus could come today and paint the truth in neon in the sky, and Catholics would still be in denial.

>>839995

>means that God redeemed Mary "from conception"

>remained pure of all personal sin throughout her entire life

lol, what kind of retard believes this though? If Mary had no original sin + remained pure her entire live, she's effectively the messiah in all but name. Might as well have her die for our sins. There would've been no need for the birth of chirst.

>>839999

Nice quads.

>what kind of retard believes this though?

Catholics.

>>839995

She is blessed not in human nature but from obedience to the Father, which is why we orthodox reject immaculate conception. This is what Luke 11:27-28 says.

>>839995

Luke 1:28

Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη,

κεχαριτωμένη (kecharitōmenē), the perfect passive participle of χαριτόω is in the vocative case because the angel was directly addressing Mary by the name; he was calling her "O Graced One." In Semitic and Hebrew usage, a person's name frequently signified their character or essence or reality. Mary is called "O Graced One" because she was singularly graced with the benefits of New Testament redemption in advance in a way that no one else was. In fact, in three different gospels (John 19:3; Matthew 27:29; Mark 15:18) we read that the soldiers that mocked Christ used the same word, Χαῖρε (khaîre), when they said, "Hail, the King of the Judeans."

Moreover, the perfect tense of κεχαριτωμένη signifies an action that was completed in the past but as an abiding result into the present. So when the angel came to Mary and called her "O Graced One" signifies that Mary had already been in that graced state. κεχαριτωμένη thus does not refer only to Mary being blessed to bear the Son of God; for in Ephesians 1:6 the verb χαριτόω (charitō) signifies the act of applying the benefits of the redemption to a person. Further, Luke 1:31 and Luke 1:35 describe the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary as a future event - you will conceive in your womb; the Holy Spirit will come upon you; the Most High will overshadow you. The conception of Christ in Mary's womb therefore had not yet occurred in Luke 1:28, but she was already described by the angel as being graced.

There is thus a definite distinction between what Mary was graced with, and the conception of Jesus Christ in her womb.

The sinlessness of Mary is further proved by the prophecy of Genesis:

>Genesis 3:15

I will put enmitities [hostility/division/opposition] between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

The seed of the woman refers to the conception of Jesus Christ in the womb of the Virgin Mary, as well as the triumph over the serpent. So, in the very chapter that records the Fall of Man into Original Sin (Genesis 3), God makes a prophecy about a woman's seed that will not be under the dominion of the serpent; her seed will triumph over the serpent and be in opposition to it. This indicates that the seed of the prophesied woman will be uncorrupted by what the serpent inflicted upon the seed of mankind. If the seed of the woman is uncorrupted by the serpent and distinct from the seed of the serpent then this proves that Mary was preserved from Original Sin from the moment of her conception. For if someone is conceived in Original Sin but forgiven of it, there remains a corruption in the flesh of the person as a result of having been conceived in Original Sin, of having been conceived under the dominion of the serpent. That corruption in the flesh is called 'concupiscence', or inclination to sin - it is what Saint Paul referred to as another law that dwells in my members (Romans 7:23) - as a punishment for being conceived in Original Sin, for having received the corrupted seed of Adam.

But consider that the seed of the woman is indicated to be dominant over the serpent. The seed of the woman is thus uncorrupted by the serpent. Notice that "the seed" belongs to the woman, "the seed" referring to what is in, and what comes forth from the woman's flesh. The flesh of the prophesied woman is therefore uncorrupted by the serpent, and this would not be the case if Mary had been conceived in Original Sin and forgiven of it. Rather, it could only be true if Mary, the prophesied woman, was graced with preservation from all stain of Original Sin from the moment of her conception and her creation, and therefore preserved from even contracting concupiscence and the deficiencies in the flesh that incline to sin, which are a result of the serpent's victory.

>>840024

Let us assume the conclusion that Mary is so untainted by those scriptures listed.

Then, I would ask for a couple things.

One what basis do you believe Christ had to die in order for salvation to be wrought? I was always under the impression it had to be Christ since he was stainless, and thus the perfect sacrifice to bear all sin.

So, before continuing, whether or not you agree with the above must be addressed.

Should you agree, then I ask you, if Mary possesses these qualities already, why couldn't she have just died for our sins. Or rather, do you believe Mary could've died to absolve us of our sins?

>>840026

This is a false syllogism, that Mary could be sacrificed to bring salvation, for the grace of Mary is not equivalent to the union of the human and the Divine natures in the Person of Jesus Christ. And this is the perfect sacrifice, the Word made Flesh, a sacrifice prefigured throughout, and foretold in, Scripture, whereby an example is given to all men and all past sacrifices are superseded. Per Pope Saint Leo the Great:

>Sermon 67

For He, the Almighty Physician, had prepared a two-fold remedy for us in our misery, of which the one part consists of mystery and the other of example , that by the one Divine powers may be bestowed, by the other human weaknesses driven out. Because as God is the Author of our justification, so man is a debtor to pay Him devotion.

Hence, Jesus Christ representing all the members of His body in Himself, spoke for those whom He was redeeming in the punishment of the cross when He cried, "O God, My God, look upon Me: why have You forsaken Me?"

That cry is a lesson, not a complaint. For since in Christ there is one person of God and man, and He could not have been forsaken by Him, from Whom He could not be separated, it is on behalf of man, in our trembling and our weakness, that He asks why the flesh that is afraid to suffer has not been heard. For when the Passion was beginning, to cure and correct our the flesh's fear He said, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless not as I will but as You;" and again, "Father, if this cup cannot pass except I drink it, Your will be done" (Matthew 26:39, 42).

As therefore He had conquered the tremblings of the flesh, and had now accepted the Father's will, trampling all dread of death under foot, He carried out the work of His design. At the very time of His triumph He seeks the cause and reason of His being forsaken, that is, not heard, to show that the feeling which He entertained in excuse of His human fears differs from the deliberate choice which, in accordance with the Father's eternal decree, He had made for the reconciliation of the world? And thus the very cry of "Unheard" is the exposition of a mighty Mystery, because the Redeemer's power would have conferred nothing on mankind if our weakness in Him had obtained what it sought.

More on the topic of sacrifice could be said, but we would begin an odyssey into the nature of man, and his need for sacrifice prior to the Temporal Mission of Christ.

>>839946

>Saint Paul does not say merely, As many as live by the Spirit of God, but, "as many as are led by the the Spirit of God,"

Sounds like you agree then.

>Paul would say, that even supposing you receive baptism, yet if you are not minded to be "led by the Spirit" afterwards, you lose the dignity bestowed upon you, and the pre-eminence of your adoption.

I don't know what word of God you're referring to here.

More importantly, though, there is that conditional clause "If you are not minded." Those whom he justified, them he also glorified. As Paul wrote in Philippians 2:13 to the saints in Christ Jesus which are/were at Philippi:

> 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

If God is the one working in the saved believer to will for them, then it is not possible that such a person will not be minded, because it is in God's hands. So your conditional is non-applicable then, as the only people who will not be minded, are unsaved. For the saint who is elected by His grace, it is God which worketh in them both to will and to do of his good pleasure. The implication being that His will obviously never fails.

>Paul next asserts the great difference between the latter and former honour.

Yes because one is referring to the Mosaic covenant which they broke. Christ is "the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." See Hebrews chapter 8-10. It was possible for those who were under the Law to fail to uphold it, and in fact according to St. Paul in Galatians 3:22-24, the Law was meant to show how all have failed and the need for a Saviour. As Paul himself wrote: "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

That still doesn't interfere with my main point here, it only shows how we are all incapable of living to God's standards without a Saviour. Yet what did Christ say in the Gospel, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."*

*Matthew 19:26

>>839946

I have more to add but I hope the above post finds a place in our common understanding. And am going to pray for it.

>For instance, your repeated claim that 'God makes mistakes' with regard to election.

I'm strongly persisting that God does not make mistakes. This is in contrast to some other claims I've seen in here suggesting that He does.

>passing immediately to my penultimate paragraph.

You wrote six paragraphs, the first two were just a thesis statement and a quote of Galatians 5:19-21. I quoted from the third paragraph, then the fourth paragraph three times before moving to the fifth.

This was largely because much of early part of your post was either arguably true or at least didn't apply to me, and I am inclined to focus on the parts that are inescapably wrong.

In the third paragraph your post mainly just misses the point because Romans 8:14 (the next verse after the one you quoted) proves that when he is saying in verse 13 that ye shall die if you live after the flesh, that cannot possibly apply to saved people because verse 14 immediately after this says, "as many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God." In other words, they, the sons of God, aren't living after the flesh. We may conclude that if someone is, then they aren't the sons of God.

And indeed, in Romans chapter 7 just before this passage, Paul also discusses this.

So with this information from Romans 8:14 in mind, we now turn to Galatians 5:19-21 and see that these things do not apply to the sons of God. It only applies to those that do serve the flesh. So there's no contradiction here.

The 4th paragraph is mainly where you jump to a bunch of wrong conclusions so that's where the most points were made. There are other passages which you might not have brought up yet that actually do refer specifically to dying in the carnal but not eternal spiritual sense. You haven't dealt with those yet just because you brought up one example which I agree isn't part of that subset of scripture passages dealing with dying physically.

Nor have you actually positively shown any scripture passages which assert what you claim when you say "Although the same doctrine is found elsewhere." Where is it then? It isn't in Ephesians 5:5-11 or 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 because our sins are remitted by the blood of Christ and taken away before entering his presence. As I pointed out in 2 Corinthians 5:21, we have the righteousness of God (namely Christ) imputed to us.

The Bible also says the same thing in Romans 4:5-6, in James 2:23, in Acts 10:43, in Hebrews 10:17-18 as well; The blood of Christ paid for the remission of sins, and therefore his own righteousness is imputed (2 Corinthians 5:21), unto those who are "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father" (1 Peter 1:2), and "are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (1 Peter 1:5)

As Paul wrote again in Ephesians 1:7, "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the richness of his grace".

The strange doctrine which you asserted, which says that God somehow makes mistakes in that saved people can somehow lose their salvation, is not actually found elsewhere. Though you said it was found elsewhere, you haven't provided any Scripture references that do show this— Galatians 5:19-21 does not apply to the sons of God as we have shown with Romans 8:14.

Neither do Ephesians 5:5 or 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

>>840048

Philippians 2:13 uses the singular conjugation to will and to do; an equivalent to Saint Paul's phraseology would be: that you may will and do anything that God wills - this verse does not mean at all what you claim, and none of the Church Fathers take its meaning as you do.

In Romans 8:14, it is false to assume that "those led by the Spirit of God" is wholly equivalent to "the Sons of God"; in the Greek the word used for 'led' is ἄγονται (agontai) is in the third-person plural passive indicative case. If you were correct, and "those led by the Spirit of God" were now and always the "Sons of God", then the verb would be used in its perfect tense to indicate an abiding result into the present.

When Saint Paul says, "Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you," he is speaking directly to true believers - that the true believers who do such things shall not obtain the Kingdom of God. Your heretical position, that God unconditionally elects individuals, is what leads you to believe that I am claiming that God makes mistakes - were you to reconsider Galatians 5:19-21 without this false doctrine then you would be forced to come to the conclusion that unconditional election is false, or resolve to persist in your obstinacy and teaching of your false gospel.

>>840050

>Philippians 2:13 uses the singular conjugation to will and to do;

Yes.

>an equivalent to Saint Paul's phraseology would be: that you may will and do anything that God wills

Does not follow.

>>an equivalent to Saint Paul's phraseology would be:

This is no different than rewriting the passage. It is what it is. If what you wrote were truly equivalent then we wouldn't need you to explain that by rewriting it again.

>this verse does not mean at all what you claim, and none of the Church Fathers take its meaning as you do.

Can you even articulate what I'm claiming in the first place? If not then what you're saying could be used as an out for any scenario. No matter what I posted, you could just say this afterward without even processing anything.

>in the Greek the word used for 'led' is ἄγονται (agontai) is in the third-person plural passive indicative case.

It's present indicative, middle or passive third person, yes.

>In Romans 8:14, it is false to assume that "those led by the Spirit of God" is wholly equivalent to "the Sons of God";

Does not follow, and,

>then the verb would be used in its perfect tense to indicate an abiding result into the present.

Not necessarily. Verse starts off with the conjunction γάρ, placing verse 14 as explicatory of previous verse.

Verse 14 starts out by saying "For," meaning that he's now going to explain a context for verses 12-13, that since as many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God, it also allows us to say that, through the Spirit mortifying the deeds of the body, means you shall live; because we know that the sons of God shall live, and also that the sons of God are as many as are led by the Spirit of God, verse 13 follows. (And of course, verse 13 is itself phrased as an explanation for verse 12, as it also starts with the same word γάρ; and we conclude that WE are not debtors to the flesh, "we" being present, indicative, active, 1st person, plural; thus including Paul and the audience.)

We can definitely read down through verse 39 of Romans 8 to get a better understanding of this context as well. Maybe, if the point remains unclear I will have the chance to do so.

>that the true believers who do such things shall not obtain the Kingdom of God.

If you read the sentence, 'you' is referring to the recipient, while 'they' is referring to the antecedent specified in vv. 19-21a. You and they when used together do not necessarily and in fact usually do not refer to the same object. (notice: κληρονομήσουσιν is future indicative active, 3rd person plural; not 2nd person which is the audience.)

>unconditional election is false

I never said anything about TULIP and do not hold to any tenet of it so I agree with you. That is besides all of the points thus far made. Similarly, I don't see where in the Bible it actually says "faith alone," but rather in Ephesians 2 it is given that by grace are we saved through faith. I am not holding any straw men positions which may be arguably true under the correct definition, but are not well or precisely formulated. I did not ground anything on axiomatic formulations such as "unconditional election" or "once justified, always justified," I made sure to consistently ground everything on actual passages of Scripture in each case, with the end goal being purely the exposition of the truth, in each case. See you around.

>>840052

I sincerely have not understood a single one of your posts; nothing you have said has made your position on any subject clear to me. Even now, having re-read your first response to me, your response seems devoid of any line of reasoning.

When you say:

>You lost me as to how you got this conclusion.

This means nothing.

>Yeah that's a strong passage for this very thing actually if you look at verse 14.

This is entirely falls into the line of reasoning which I laid out that a Protestant would fall into, I made no such use of this verse in my own argument.

>How does it refute the general claim that there are some passages that refer to death of the flesh?.. but how exactly does this refute all of the other passages that actually do?

What general claim? If your question was: How am I going to understand passages that seem to contradict one another? Then I would answer: By looking to the traditional position of the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church.

>It's about being dead to the law and to sin and being justified by the righteousness of God….So no, I don't think that claim you made about "not getting to the point of being identified with a category" is a valid argument.

This is not an argument. What do you mean by 'dead to the law', 'dead to sin' and 'being justified by the righteousness of God'? And again, I was precluding the potential position of Protestants.

>It's a good thing that saved believers have the remission of sins then isn't it.

Regarding our conversation this means nothing.

>If someone is making manifest that they were not of us, that means they were never saved.

Here we differ, because this statement alone suggests that you, being Protestant and not Christian, hold the false position that if you are saved then you are always saved.

>>840024

>Genesis 3:15

The literal meaning of the text does not justify equating the woman in enmity with the serpent with Mary. "The literal meaning is that Eve (not Mary) and her posterity will win the moral battle against Satan and his descendants. There is no doubt that the 'woman' is Eve, it is also clear that the 'offspring' is the literal offspring of Eve (cf. Gen. 4:1, 25), and Christ's victory over Satan (cf. Rom. 16:20)".

Although it is possible, by extension, to make an indirect application of the woman to Mary, from there to her immaculate conception (not implicit in the verse) is a giant leap. The fact is that there is no necessary or logical relationship between Mary being the mother of the messiah and having been conceived without sin. A possible analogy between Eve and Mary is not the "impeccability" of Mary, but the opposite. If Mary were the correlative of Eve, she would share the same sinful nature as the first woman. Jesus, her Son, would have been like Cain, conceived through human sperm. But the miracle of the incarnation is that Jesus was able to share our human nature without sharing our "sinful nature" because he was not conceived as Cain through human sperm (of Adam or Joseph) but through his Father. Because God was His Father, His life originated in His Father's perfection.

If Christ had had a human father, He would certainly have inherited a sinful nature like that of Adam and all his descendants. He could not have escaped the death sentence passed in Eden. However, Mary's "ovule" was not germinated by Joseph, but by the Holy Spirit. This means that Jesus has His origin in God, therefore, He is not subject to death by heredity. He died by choice. Christ's voluntary death makes His vicarious sacrifice possible.

Unlike the divine conception of Jesus, Mary was conceived through the natural sexual relationship of her parents - a fact which the Catholic Church accepts. As such, she inherited a sinful nature as every human being who comes into the world. Nowhere does the Bible support the Catholic teaching that Mary was cleansed of all forms of sin at conception by being infused with a soul without limp from original sin. The claim that Mary was immaculate from conception is pure invention of the Catholic Church, which intentionally needed to exalt Mary to the position of Christ in order to enable her to dispense grace and salvation as her Son.

>>840063

I think about this sometimes. I think your right. Jesus was perfect so He couldn’t have inherited any of the physical from Mary. I don’t see how a Christian can accept it any other way.

>>840064

I'm sure there's a nondirect mention of that in the Bible, but I don't know exactly where.