/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>12156

No

>>12156

No.

t. Orthodoxanon

>>12156

idk, it makes purgatory seem more impersonal if it can be transposed upon it.

>>12320

>>12320

>more

Less*

>>11769

No schlomo, we don't. This is a dumb talking point that no honest apologist would toss in here offhand. Pot stirrers not welcome.

Here's a Catholic discussing it https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/06/luther-believe-christ-committed-adultery-mary-magdalene.html

Protestant https://wolfmueller.co/did-martin-luther-claim-that-Jesus-was-an-adulterer/

Worst case, a reformer made a bad and even blasphemous comment which none of us are beholden to. This is a situation several popes have also brought upon themselves.

>>11770

This 'reformer' is the one behind your doctrines

>>10199

" disciples were urging Jesus [to have a meal], saying, “Teacher, eat.” 32 But He told them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought Him something to eat?” 34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to completely finish His work."

You're telling me Jesus had time to waste on women when he barely fed Himself?

[-]

>>12229

>There's a Catholic flag.

No kidding. I'm not saying

<durr Catholics get out

I'm saying this thread topic belongs on the Catholic board.

>>12218

>Logical position

>Appeal to consensus

That's not how logic works

>>12229

I was permabanned once there for saying that I don't like the Novus Ordo Mass (their excuse was that I was "a /islam/ troll" lol), /catholic/ is dead and half their post were about SSPX drama.

This is the most decent place currently.

>>12234

They can make Catholic specific threads just like we can make Presbyterian or Methodist threads. You don't have to post in them if you don't want.

Wasn't he an arian?

And yes, liberalism is sorta a religion itself which supersedes any creed.

>>12107

>He doesn't tell the Eunuch "God has inerrantly explained this passage through a certain ecclesiastical office", he told him the gospel message of Jesus.

this

>And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36,37)

Pedobaptism disproved right here.

>>12223

>Apparently its Christian unity week and we are called to pray for an united Christendom. Lets do so

I don't pray with Muslims, so why would I pray with a Roman Catholic for a holiday made up by Roman Catholics? There can be no theological or ecclesiastical unity between us. Our differences are too great. We have no more interest in submitting to your Pope king than we do the the Prophet president of the Mormon church.

>>12223

You are erroneously oversimplifying everything to say everything in Protestantism is a result of sola scriptura and everything in the RCC is a result of a magesterial concept.

>But in a book of such richness of meanings and symbology there will always be a plethora of interpretations, so how can it be self authoritative

Every argument has to stand on its own merit, and we leave room for disagreement. Remember, Sola scriptura means scripture is the final authority, still using every tool possible like ancient language research, biblical archaeology, early Christian studies etc

>sola scriptura makes that as time goes on the more church splinters

Denominationalism is liberty plus conviction. That conviction to leave can be from a Sola scriptura perspective or not.

>But if that was so protestantism would have been a bulwark of unity and stability but its the Christian group that more divides itself due to new people thinking their interpretation is actually the real sola scriptura one.

If our hermeneutical method was right, there wouldn't be other disagreements? Just dumb

We're also operating on a totally fabricated idea of interpretive authority in the Roman Catholic church. Roman catholic scholars are constantly debating interpretations of texts (as they should be) just like Protestant scholars. Nobody in the rcc has sat down under the authority of his funny hat and given everybody the right interpretation of every passage in the Bible, it just so happens that the over time they've conveniently declared inspiration directly from God on the doctrines that centralize their authority.

In any case, you must agree that this passage does not present any challenge for sola scriptura.

Because it's Truth.

Eternal life

>>12200

you shouldn't. You should follow the Chad Catholicism.

>>12200

>I'm desperate for answers.

Then ask a question.

>>11816

If you have reason to suspect that your wife is committing adultery, you can (and I say SHOULD) divorce her.

>>12094

>divorce on mere suspicion

unacceptable

>>12094

You, uh, got a Single verse for that?

>>12094

This isn't /islam/

>>11868

>11846

11846's post was so good that I was going to just move on but then I saw 11868's stuff and felt the need to ask this question, which implies a very strong answer if he can't answer it: What verse do you have to substantiate that penetrative intercourse = "marriage in the flesh?" In the OT the man /had/ to marry a virgin because virgins were worthless without their virginity in that culture, meaning that the man just destined the woman to live forever unmarried in her father's house. Therefore, so that she would not have to suffer such a fate, the man was /required/ to marry her.

This is not /at all/ the case in most of the world today, nor was it really in Jesus' day, which is why this Law is not brought into the NT. (If you want to get angry about me for dissing the Mosaic Law, then I'd like to ask you if you, "wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together," Levi. 19:19)

Until he finds a verse to substantiate the claim he made earlier (Paul's "You've been joined to the prostitute" verse doesn't count because Paul doesn't say that the men who do this need to marry the prostitute), I'll toss in that you have no obligation towards her, and as our good friend 11846 said above, you've already failed her and trying to save the ship will only drown you both. I.e., if you truly Love her, you'll let her go, get yourself right, and then /maybe/ come back as a proper man.

Now, also keep in mind, all of that has been said completely void of the whole point that you're now dead to your desires and alive to Christ, which means you are to /deny/ yourself, take up your cross, and die daily. Therein, on that verse alone, from Jesus' mouth, your confession of "I have too much affection for her," is actually a statement of idolatry. (My condolences if this hurts to hear this.) Therefore, you /must/ separate from that idol, rather than cling to it and "try to make it right."

>>12073

fyi use two apostrophes to italicize on this site

>>12086

Cheers mate

Lose salvation and that of your offspring over vagina?

Get your priorities straight.

I'm a Turk and let me tell if you a Turkish girl and her family are serious about religion then in most cases they are nutjobs so run away

>>12067

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/14-23.htm

The commentary

>>12067

Actually, I'm not thinking about Romans 14:23 at all. I'm thinking about Romans 1:18-20, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse," which Paul then builds upon in 2:14-16, "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do, by nature, the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus," which is reinforced by, " as the foundation for his rebuke of the division between the Gentiles and Jews in Rome (You know why the book of Romans was written, right?) as well as his apologetic for His ministry.

To be clear, I'm saying that Romans 1:18-20 says that God is known by all enough for them to be responsible before Him and Romans 2:14-16 reinforces that all who reject God's way are rejecting their own nature, as they're made in the image of God [which is why they're also legitimately guilty, they have to choose to reject that nature] while also saying that there are /some/ (I understand this as /very few/ according to a variety of other passages) who "Live as a Law unto themselves," and it will be counted as Righteousness to them, just as with Able, Noah, and Abraham.

This is why Paul goes into that, "I did not have sin until I new the Law but then I had sin," section. He's talking about how God judges those outside of the Law according to how they followed the little bit of His nature that remains within them, but the moment you know the Law, you're now held accountable to it. Like so, the moment you have the Spirit, you're now accountable /above/ the Law, to the Inner Law of the NT (Detailed bPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>12064

I mean… Do you have a verse that perfectly outlines God's thoughts on the actions, beliefs, thoughts, words, worship, prayers, etc. that are not done in faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth?

My first thought would be Galatians 5, where the fruit of the Flesh and the Spirit are actively contrasted in a way that displays the Spirit's fruit as the favorable fruit.

If you're a KJV only type of guy, then Proverbs 15:26, when taken out of context, seems to suit the situation, "The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD: but the words of the pure are pleasant words," however, that's a translation that's based on far latter texts, which is why modern translations render it akin to, "Evil plans are an abomination to the Lord, but pleasant words are pure," so it's more about plans to do evil rather than thoughts that are evil (difference between having the thought, "I could steal this," and actually thinking through, "I want to steal this, now how can I do that without getting caught." I.e., meditating on evil, which is why the chiastic structure of the verse synonymizes it with, "He who profits illicitly troubles his own house."

What verse do you have in mind?

>>12070

This is another regular divide in reading between calvinists and everyone else, where calvinists read the subjects of Romans 1 as representative of all humanity while everyone else doesn't.

>>12075

I'd be delighted if you'd explain that, cause I ain't calvinist, and I'm currently arguing that the subject of Romans 1 is all of humanity..?

>>9032

>everyone whose last name is Black is a nigger

You're so dumb I actually believe you are black.

Imagine your ancestors having so little to give the world that you feel the need to steal others' legacy to compensate. Just believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and live your life; no need to LARP.

DAS RITE

.