/christianity/ - Christian Theology

>>1878

>Monk who spent 20 hours a day studying Scripture and wrote a dozen books on his interpretations

>Fat 15 year old who spends 20 hours a day playing video games and shitposts on 8chan

Which one am I going to listen to … hmmmmm

>>1881

>Listen to some man who may have an agenda

Or

>Read the holy text which the religion is founded upon

Yes hard decision indeed.

>>1884

The religion is founded by Christ through Peter, neither of whom read the New Testament. The Bible is the Talmud of Christianity. It's a compilation of writings from long after Jesus lived and died, based on his life; but it is not the foundation of the religion.

>>1884

>implying fat basement dwellers on 8chan don't have an agenda

>>1885

Is this the reason popes claim infallibility. I think I would trust the gospels more than that. You are lost and some of the writings were made by the apostles themselves.

>>1886

Why don't you want to read the bible?

>>1887

>Why don't you want to read the bible?

I've read it plenty of times, but to think that 8chan anons don't have an agenda is disingenuous. Why don't you want to read the Church fathers?

>>1888

I believe the church is the enemy of God

1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

9 And here [is] the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

If you know anything about rome you would know that this is talking about the roman catholic church.

>>1878

>Never listen to pastors

Are you sure you've read the Bible?

The office of the pastor is established in the Bible, and so is the preaching task. You are not to "forsake the assembling of yourselves together", meaning the local church.

I think you're making the mistake of buying into the Catholic or the Pentecostal idea that the pastor has some supernatural authority, but in evangelicalism his authority is entirely based on his consistency with the text.

>>1891

Sorry my mistake its just that I am very skeptical of pastors.

Read your bible AND listen to preaching

>>1889

Therefor, you have an agenda and cannot be trusted.

>>1890

You're showing your anti-Catholic bias and, therefor, your opinion cannot be trusted.

>>1901

>>1902

My anti catholic bias can actually be backed up by scriptures though.

>>1912

Backed up by (your interpretation) of scriptures.

You said anyone with an agenda cannot be trusted and you clearly have an agenda.

>>1913

> With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

This refers to the multiple idolatries of the catholic church and how all the nations bow to her very call. Also notice it says the inhabitants of the earth majority of people are protestant, Catholic, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, Jewish or Zoroastrian. Which would make sense that the majority of the inhabitants have been completely subjegated to the will of these false doctrines. Non denominational is the truth because they must follow the teachings of the bible and not be corrupted by the doctrines of man.

>and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

Furthermore the vatican sits upon 7 hills which the heads of the beast represents. There are obviously different examples but this one is the most realistic especially considering how the bible usually equates women with churches as in the faithful women is the church of God while the whore is the false religions.

>And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Have you heard of a roman triumphant? Romans saw the colour of purple as a royal colour and during the triumphant the triumphator would come into rome with his army with jews and gold on a chariot(not exactly a beast like the one in revelation but still). Then during the end of the triumphant the triumphator would ceremoniusly strangle slaves in front of a temple of Jupiter.

>>1914

>with jews

I meant with jewels.

>>1914

>the vatican sits upon 7 hills

No it doesn't. ROME was built on 7 hills, but Vatican City is one tiny part of Rome. If one thing is incorrect, then the whole argument falls apart.

>>1916

Its still apart of rome. Which means it also applies to the vatican.

>>1917

No, it isn't. Vatican City is its own sovereign nation and not a part of Rome.

>>1918

Is it in rome?

>>1919

No more so than Texas is in Mexico. They share a border, nothing more.

>>1920

Yes but it is incorportated inside of rome meaning that it shares romes borders.

>>1923

Do you see the problem here? You're having to perform all of these mental gymnastics and moving goalposts to try to justify your personal interpretation that the RCC is the whore of babylon.

>>1920

I don't think the possible connection to prophecy is hindered because governmental jurisdiction isn't the same as the geographic location

>>1924

>roman catholic church

>roman

>>1878

>my personal interpretation says fags can remain fags and be saved

<my personal interpretation says that Jesus says we are gods.

>>my personal interpretation says that I can sin boldly and not do works as long as I believe in Jesus

<<my personal interpretation says that Jesus is St. Michael the Archangel and Satan is his brother

Wew prot, what could possibly go wrong if you read the bible at face value?

>>1928

The Bible doesn't prima facie support any of those claims.

You would have a better argument if you were to point out something that seems possible on a first read, like the Arian heresy, because it's a more nuanced issue.

If OP is arguing

>Pastors always mislead you, only interpret the Bible for yourself

You're making the inverse error of

>You should never attempt to interpret the Bible, always trust Pastors

The reality is that orthodoxy is orthodoxy regardless of who articulates it. Go bootlick somewhere else.

>>1927

It's also called the "Latin Church", so does that mean Latin America is also the whore of babylon? Come on, man. The mental gymnastics are cute, but you can't be serious.

>>1932

You missed the point of a woman representing a church in revelation.

>>1931

>Unironically using leftpol jargon

>>>/marx/

>>1943

what was leftpol about that

>>1934

>a woman representing a church

I wasn't aware that Pope Francis is a woman.

>>1949

No goober

The woman in the text is interpreted as the church

>>1949

>a woman representing a church

The Bride of Christ.

The Old Testament has a lot of symbolism with Israel as a bride who, when straying from God, becomes a whore.

I think it's more likely that the Whore of Babylon is Jerusalem, but Rome is also a plausible candidate. There are also others, such as Washington DC.

>>2016

Romanism is as wacky a cult as Mormonism and the JWs

>>1878

based

>>2017

>says the bible idolater

>>1932

>Latin Church

>Latin

>as in the Latins, from Latium, in which is Rome

>>2619

Stop this useless strawman phrase. It's not even natural grammar. You seem petulant whenever you say it.

>>2622

Latin is a language, ya scrub. Rome is a city in Italy. You're giving the equivalence of saying that people in the United States speak "Washington DCian".

Why don't catholics want to read the bible. Are they scared to read the scriptures that they supposedly follow?

>>2636

>language

Yes. Spoken by the Latins, in Latium, in which is Rome. Hence it being called Latin.

It is called the Latin church because of the people which founded it, in the same way that the Greek is called the Greek because of the people which founded it.

>>2639

We read it all the time. Passages from it are used in our liturgical prayers, homilies, the Rosary, and in the Mass. We not only read it, but we speak it aloud in church! The average Catholic reads the entire Bible once a year, every year, for their entire life. What's your excuse?

>>2658

Latium is a region. Rome is in that region. The language is Roman, the Empire is Roman, the Church is Roman. Latin is a language, nothing more.

>>2705

>The language is Roman, the Empire is Roman, the Church is Roman. Latin is a language, nothing more.

You are a moron

>>1920

The level of denial in this post is astounding!

https://discord.gg/ysgd3K7

>>2715

>the rosary is derived

Mondays and Saturdays:

Luke 1:26–38

Luke 1:39–56

Luke 2:1–21

Luke 2:22–38

Luke 2:41–52

Tuesdays and Fridays:

Matthew 26:36–56

Matthew 27:26

Matthew 27:27–31

Matthew 27:32

Matthew 27:33–56

Wednesdays and Sundays:

John 20:1–29

Luke 24:36–53

Acts 2:1–41

Thursdays:

Matthew 3:13–16

John 2:1–11

Mark 1:14–15

Matthew 17:1–8

Matthew 26

Only a Prot would think the Gospel is "derived".

>>2715

> I used to be catholic

A lukewarm who only went to Mass every now and then on Sundays? If you go to Mass every day, then you read the entirety of the Bible in a year. Stop falseflagging, Prot heretic.

>>2725

Yeah, it's a prayer made up of a bunch of mashed together verses. Perhaps "derived" wasn't the best term, but what you posted literally shows that it's just a mash-up of verses.

>>2726

The average catholic doesn't go to mass every day, ergo my point stands.

>>2728

It's not a mash-up. It is literally using the Rosary to read the Gospel. Combined with Mass - during which more scripture is read - Catholics literally read the entire Bible.

>>2732

>>2733

>look at these pics! They prove I'm right!

Is this all you've got?

>>2736

Yes, that is how statistics work. If you have reason to believe they're faulty you need to explain why.

Please note that I am not at all arguing that general Catholic nominalism means the rosary is wrong, and I'm not that other guy you're talking to who is also sharing the pew data.

>>2730

I see where the confusion is now. When I say the rosary isn't biblical I don't mean that it's not composed of Bible verses - nobody can deny that it is - but it's not told in the Bible to pray the rosary. It's a series of prayers focused on Mary, and our focus should be on Jesus since He is the only mediator between man and God.

>>2756

>first step in rosary is to sign the cross and pray the Apostle's Creed

>second step in rosary is to pray the Our Father

These two things literally establish that the Rosary is being used in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It also confirms the Glory Be before the Mysteries are read. During the Rosary, we ask Mary to pray for us as we read scripture in Jesus's name. You obviously know nothing about the Rosary and are false flagging.

>>2759

You're are entirely avoiding the question of the biblical permissibility of performing the ritual of the rosary. We are being patient with you by assuming there's only a miscommunication.

>>2760

Asking the saints for intercession is Biblical.

Mary is a saint.

Ergo, asking Mary to pray for you is Biblical!

Why is that so difficult?

>>2762

As we all know, we evangelicals generally reject premise one.

The rosary entails more regarding Mary than praying to her as an intercessor, as is being argued in this thread. Stop replying if you're not going to squarely respond to objections.

>>2765

>we evangelicals generally reject premise one

All believers are Saints. Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 2 Corinthians 1:1, Colossians 1:2, Ephesians 1:1, Philippians 1:1, 1 Corinthians 14:33, Ephesians 2:19, Colossians 1:26, Jude 1:3, Ephesians 3:18, Colossians 1:12, Ephesians 5:3, Ephesians 6:18, Romans 8:27.

Ergo, Mary - a believer - is a Saint.

Asking the Saints (believers) to pray for us is Biblical. Galatians 6:2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ

Ergo, asking Mary to pray for us is Biblical.

>>2782

Mary is dead. Communion with the dead is called necromancy and it's a grave sin.

>>2832

>Saints

>Dead

I guess you don't believe in everlasting life, then?

>>2832

cringe.

>>2836

>deliberately misunderstanding someone for internet argument points

He's talking about the first death goober

>>2838

Mary didn't die. She was assumed into Heaven.

>>2839

How do you know, because the pope says so?

That's the same authority which claims she had no sin, she holds a role in salvation, you should pray multiples of times a day to her etc…

It's not in the Bible, and the Bible is wholly sufficient for Christian doctrine.

Mary died and went to heaven just like every other saint who isn't named Moses or Elijah.

>>2840

Show me her grave. And don't tell me about "muh 2000 years ago! it was lost!" crap. Mary was extremely important, being the literal mother of God, and there would be a grave site for her if she died. We can see graves far older than 2000 years, so … where is Mary buried?

>>2840

>he thinks God would come to Earth in a sinful vessel

The absolute state of protestants.

>>2849

It would help my case if I had one, I don't need to provide it. The onus is on you to argue Mary did not physically die.

>>2850

>arguing from presupposed philosophical platitudes

the absolute state of catholic apologetics

>>2851

Wrong. The claim is that Mary died. >>2832 is the claim. Now prove it.

>>2851

>Mary died!

<No, she was assumed into Heaven. She never died.

>PROVE IT!

<NO U!

When you show me her grave, I might accept her physical death. Until then, I will accept the Munificentissimus Deus that she is the Woman Clothed in the Sun (Rev 12) and that she is analogous to the Ark of the Covenant since she physically carried the Word in her womb.

Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified. (Ps 131:8)

>>2840

"the Bible is wholly sufficient for Christian doctrine."

Can you show me exactly where it says this in the Bible?

>>2865

>>2866

The onus of proof lies with the assumption side because this is a break from the normal outcome of life for the billions of other humans throughout history, and there isn't a scriptural record of it. Whoever brought up the question first in our discussion does not matter. Basic argumentation.

>>2840

2 Tim 3

"Thoroughly furnished for every good work"

>>2870

>>2868

>>2867

And all of Rome's heresies stem from their warping and twisting and adding to said "Apostolic Tradition" due to "Tradition" being elevated to being on par with Scripture (not to mention them presenting it us "unbroken" and "unchanged")

>Acts 8:26-31

You neglected the context that the Eunuch was reading from the Old Testament Scriptures, and that the New Testament had not even been written at that point. The Eunuch more than likely never even heard of the Gospel and the events surrounding Jesus, and thus needed a witness to this, in the same manner as people in far away countries and inner jungles need to be informed via the Great Commission to this very day.

As for your subtext of "Only the One True Holy Apostollic Church should be able to interpret scripture.":

Acts 17:10-11

>As soon as night had fallen, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true. As a result, many of them believed, along with quite a few prominent Greek women and men.

Hmmm… laity examining scriptures for themselves in a language they understand. A far cry from an imposed liturgical language of Latin, as well as having scriptures forbidden for to laymen to directly study in violation of God's Word:

2Timothy 3:15-17:

>And you know that from childhood you have known the sacred Scriptures, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Also the above is a response to >>2868

Also, yes, I've already read the Catholic mental gymnastics-arrific "counter-argument" that the Thessalonians were the "real sola-scriptura practitioners", but said argument neglects those who were converted by scripture, (including Jason and his brothers who protected Paul and Silas) and those Jews who simply rejected by hardness of heart and ultimately putting even Caesar's decrees above scripture (not to mention oral tradition is not brought up in the passage about the Bereans): Acts 17 1-9

>>2874

There is a huge difference.

1)The Enunch needed someone to explain the Scriptures to him

2)The Beareans looking through Scripture isnt private interpretation but communal examination and reading.

3)Also ignores basic things such as how one is gonna read Scripture and what interpretive lens it will be read with.

These are why I as a former Evangelical am no longer one after reading the Bible and its context, because it essentially shows your lens as false on issues like Baptism, Eucharist, nature of church and soteriology.

To avoid cluttering all over the place, let's use the Ethiopian enuch as an example to show one instance of my move away from Baptist/Evangelical and towards a high church Anglican.

For one the Greek for guide(ὁδηγήσει) is used in a personalized way because it appears in a context that is saturated with ὁδός, which is personalized makes it all the more likely he is directly referring to Philip. The angel's instruction prior reinforces this. Hence Philip who is essentially reading OT texts about a suffering figure is saying he needs Phillip to access the Divine knowledge of the Gospel and be Saved.

When Philip begins to teach and explain to the enuch the language used by Acts parallels that of the Emmaus pericope back in Luke. Jesus started with Moses and the Prophets. Likewise Philip started with the Prophets or more specifically, Isaisah. Jesus is the focus of Scriptures in the Emmaus Pericope. So too is in Philip's teaching to the Enuch.

Also when Acts speak that Phillip opened(ἀνοίξας) his mouth, this happens in a juxaposition with Isaianic reference to the suffering one “who did not open his mouth [οὔτως οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ]” (Acts 8:32).

Such parallels indicate that Philip is necessary for the Ethiopian's transformation. He opens the eyes of the Ethiopian just as Jesus opened the eyes of the Disciples. Philip functions as a supernatural guide necessary to affect Transformation. He is as Christopher A Graham(a Baptist) puts it, an instantiation of the Way to paradise. This sort of thing isnt necessarily against Protestantism. As an Evangelical looking at it for the first time however, I felt disgusted, angered even by the fact that Philip as needed for the Ethiopian to get it and Philip is at that moment an instantiation of the Way is just too sacramental(the same I found in studying Paul too) in nature. But like any honest person, I just had to admit it, I was wrong.

>>2877

>>2877

>Philip who is reading the OT Texts

I meant the Enuch.

>>1885

>The Bible is the Talmud of Christianity

You misspelled Catechism.

>>2877

>1)The Enunch needed someone to explain the Scriptures to him

In order to link the OT to something that the Eunuch did not even know happened yet. How could he link the OT prophecies about Jesus, when he did not even know about the Gospel/Jesus, that the disciples were literally going around spreading at that time period?

>2)The Beareans looking through Scripture isnt private interpretation but communal examination and reading.

And yet the private interpretations of the likes of Wycliffe, Tyndale, etc. in opposition to "Catholic Apostolic Teaching", without some direct supernatural transformative guide (with the exception of the Holy Spirit, obviously), is precisely why flawed aspects of the Catholic interpretive lens were brought to light and started Protestantism in the long term (and ultimately why we also have English Bibles and are thus able to have this debate in the first place.). Also, communal examination is a part of sola scriptura, not excluded. Interpreting the OT as pointing towards Jesus is literally a given.

>>2881

Except the issue as I exegeted right after to give more explanation shows that he needs someone who knows the information and is also an Instantiation of such to know. Reading the Scriptures without the proper hermeneutics wasnt enough. Someone had to give it to him. But there's more, the fact that Philip's acts are framed in such a way that they relate to Jesus' own acts in the Emmaus pericope and even Isaiah alongside the personalized referent of "guide" shows more than what you are indicating. This matches Romans where one hears the Scripture and that implies a body who has access to this knowledge and instantiates it to convey it to those who dont have it.

On your second point presupposes what Tyndale said is right. But if it is only a set group of Protestant Reformers then what of earlier people? If they are wrong, then they are wrong because their examination goes against nearly all of the reception history of the Bible and ultimately even back to the text itself. Tyndale certainly didnt think Philip was the supernatural guide necessary for the Enunch's Transformation. Interpreting the OT according to Jesus is presupposed due to the NT. But plenty of exegetical techniques from Jewish tradition must be adapted for such an undertaking. Communial reading is against Sola Scriptura because the context of communial reading is one where someone more literate and informed provides the information to others to know. In this case, the Apostles and the elders they ordained do this. That presupposes various exegetical techniques to connect the OT to the message and as Andrew B Mcgowan notes of such a phenomenon, presupposes authorized teaching which is not far off when one considers the kingship of the Apostles.

Also since we now have Tyndale, let's talk about his movement, the Lollards who are practically known to be varied from group to group. They reject transubstantiation but some like Wycliffe are essentially consubstantialists on the issue contrast to the Zwlinglian Tyndale.

There is a problem here, the consubstantialists are more right than Tyndale and both would not had known about the concept of anamnesis in the Passover which is tied to the Eucharist and he would not had known the participation in the Gosp that is part of Paul's own theology of the gift!

Only with the Anglicans who are less irrational does a recovery towards that view and the Patristic began in contrast to the ironic unbiblicalism of Tyndale and Zwlingli!

>>2882

On the first point, leaping from similar language straight to sacramentalism, is a bit of a leap. Especially in a light of an increasing populace being baptized in the Holy Spirit.

On your Second point, and this post >>2883 Considering how off the rails the Catholics went while under supposed authority, yes, I don't find it hard to believe that earlier peoples can be wrong. Especially considering the sketchiness of reception history and it's fruits.

Finally, you basically reject Tyndale etc. on their rejection of a sacrament, and state your belief in sacramentalism, by saying they would not have the gift of the Holy Spirit. Yet earlier, you say this is not a problem for Protestantism…. yet once again, even the Anglican church ultimately has roots in the works of these men. Your church's magnum opus, the KJV (and I say this as one who respects the KJV but is not a KJV onlyist) is literally 70-80 percent Tyndale, because his supposedly, un-Holy Spirit guided personal interpretation, was literally THAT good.

There is also scriptural evidence for hierarchies (bishops, pasters, deacons, etc. "not all should strive to be teachers.") and people growing in their faith over time after starting out as spiritual children, which just about any reputable Evangelical church recognizes. This does not conflict with a hierarchy based communal reading. You seem to imply that personal interpretation means "I read the Bible, and I think Dinosaurs came from Mars!" which is the rotten fruit of only the most obvious out there cults (i.e. Mormonism), and not adhering to a truly critical examination of scripture.

Honestly, trying to reconcile Protestantism with Catholicism (which is essentially what you are trying to do as an Anglican) is far less rational than picking one or the other. And in terms of frutis, in terms of being a moral backbone in the modern world, Evangelicals aren't exactly doing half-bad, for people who follow scripture and reject sacramentalism.

>>2884

*Correction, you said that sacramentalism was not a problem for Protestantism IIRC, my mistake, I did not mean to misrepresent you.

>>2884

I see little refutation of what I provided for Acts over here. I am glad you noticed that nowhere do I say that sacramentalism is indeed incompatible with Protestantism. This isnt my point and I made clear what I provided is not necessarily against it. But it is necessarily against your views.

Secondly, as I am not a specialist in the KJV's history, I wont dwell on that point safe only for Tyndale's error. Note how I made my point about the Lollards. I noted that some are more orthodox than others. I never said all are. Someone who is Zwlinglian like Tyndale would be of course, no questions asked. But my objection is Biblically based on the fact he and others like him does not consider the concept of Eucharistic anamnesis which is pretty much common in NT Scholarship on the subject, and the like is also extended to the act of preaching the Gospel, noted by Orrey McFarland(Lutheran) in God and Grace in Philo and Paul. which potrays Paul's preaching activity as making the past Christ event of his atonement present in some sense(pg.160). Paul's life and ministry, reflects Christ so that Christ can be revealed.

This sort of view demands the logic of ananmesis Jews have for Passover where participants are in some sense reliving the Exodus narrative. A similar thing is noted by Baptist Beasley Murray on Romans 6, who is followed by Calvinist Douglas Moo on this matter where one is truly buried with Christ in Baptism rather than it as some mere empty symbol as you and Evangelicals proclaim. Hence what I presented here is literally in line with the other areas of the NT covered and context. It is no stretch as you have provided no alternative interpretation.

The fruit of Evangelicalism is clear, many misunderstand the meaning of the verses they read. Even my pastor couldnt explain when I point out how Peter in Acts say baptism is a necessary condition to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and remission of sins. He cant even tell me why Galatians 3:27 or Romans 6 be symbolic safe for appealing to 1Peter. But when i told him about the Greek use of "appeal for good conscience" as being used for signed contracts from one of the threads here, he couldnt answer. Is this the fruit you speak of? The fruit of your private interpretation outside of the contextual lens to read Scripture and the Pastristic heritage and virtually a lack of scholarship? Even my Novus Ordo Catholic friends told me they were given some basic information on it!

Lastly, no I am not a Protestant in the usual sense of the word. What Anglicanism at its best done is to take the best of both worlds alongside the Patristic heritage and enrich the faithful. Evangelicalism just ignore the beauty of the depth of Scripture in favour of shallow worship and a lousy theology of assurance

>>2889

I recognize you now.

Matthew 3:11- I baptize you with water for repentance, but after me will come One more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Pentecost - Baptized with tongues of fire of the Holy Spirit, no water involved; and other instances of this outside of Pentecost, such as Act 10: 44-48, not to mention the story of the jailer and his family who believed first, and then were baptized.

John 6 - Before, Jesus has referred to himself as many metaphorical titles - light of the world, door of the sheep, the true vine, etc. But as soon as he says Bread of Life, all of the sudden he's being literal? Even in the face of him obviously referring to himself as the true bread that man must live on (his words and commandments and being the Word incarnate), in contrast to earthly bread? Even as 6:53's "flesh and blood" is a Hebrew idiom referring to "the total person?" In other words, the imitation of Christ in deed, character and essence through belief?

John 6 28-29; 34-35

"What can we do to perform the works of God?" Jesus replied, "This is the work of God - that you believe in the one He has sent.

….Then they said, "Sir, give us this bread always!" "I am the bread of life," Jesus told them. "No one who comes to Me will ever be hungry, and no one who believes in Me will ever be thirsty again."

Utilizing the idiom of taking on his whole person: John 6: 53-58 Note that afterwards, many disciples desert Jesus due to trying to take his words literally in light of having been amongst the 5,000 who were recently miraculously fed, and still of the mentality of thinking of satiating their stomachs.

>This sort of view demands the logic of ananmesis Jews have for Passover where participants are in some sense reliving the Exodus narrative.

Yes, in a symbolic sense by temporarily living in booths, not going out and literally wandering around in circles in the wilderness for another 40 years.

> the Greek use of "appeal for good conscience" as being used for signed contracts from one of the threads here,

Yes, the Baptism of belief through the Holy Spirit, of fire, is a contract. No water required. Even the thief on the cross did not require such water, but merely sincere and heartfelt belief. Even in the OT, the Holy Spirit descends on a group for prophesying, void of water; with water, such as the crossing through the Red Sea and the Jordan being referenced in a symbolic sense in future verses and exegesis.

I myself left Orthodoxy due to being fed up with the crypto-paganism, the crypto-works based salvation, unbiblical additions, and Pharisaical pride ,pedantry and shallowness that was the product of puffed up and pretty, but ultimately empty rituals, which could also be seen in the fruits of believers and the upper echelon alike. "We're better than those Protestants because our liturgies are longer and require more work!" all while still being cultural Christians at best, and even having the nerve to have a Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee. I've developed an instinctive distrust of spectacle and razzle dazzle as a result (maybe some Evangelicals get something out of rock concert style services and charismatic antics, but not me. At the same time, if they get saved because of such things, more power to them.)

I prefer the simple and sincere faith, scripture and direct prayers from the heart to and relationship with Jesus of Evangelicalism, and the lack of uppitness over whether a church has pews or organs, or if priests have beards or not. I did not like the proud, arrogant Pharisee I was starting to become.

So no, we are probably never going to see eye to eye. I have no desire to go from basically an Eastern Catholocism, to a form of Protestantism that is essentially pseudo-Catholocism.

On a final note, I noticed you utilized this line of thinking:

>which is pretty much common in NT Scholarship on the subject

…in the reverse in our last debate. Saying that the commonality of the belief of Mary's non-perpetual virginity in NT Scholarship, is not grounds for it's truth. Which, as I closed on, I can agree: Popularity does not necessarily equate truth. But I digress.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Good night, and God Bless.

>>2895

As there are plenty of ground for me to cover here, I will address the last statement first. The problem is most scholarship on Mary's perpetual virginity or lack thereof are not as robust as the overall theology of the NT. For instance Richard Longenecker and Douglas Moo in Galatians simply presuppose the lack thereof without consideration of Bauckham's arguments or the naunces of the issue. The same for DA Carson himself too in his commentary on Matthew.

In contrast, there are always a lot of reasons given for how Baptism is like in the New Testament or why the Eucharist follows the Jewish Passover's concept of participation. In the exegesis on Matthew, John and Acts that will follow I will show the severe limitations of your eisegesis. Yes I say eisegesis as it doesnt bother to engage with the background and context of the passages as I will demonstrate beyond just mere surface reading from the regula of typical Evangelical pastors

>>2895

1)Matthew

Here the verse only tells us someone greater than John will come and Baptize. It doesnt establish the need for Evangelical wishy washy born again theology on this issue. How do we know this? Because in Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus provides the command to Baptize in the name of the Trinity.

In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus commands the disciples to go out to all nations, teaching them and Baptizing them. Given the missionary theme of this verse to make disciples, what this already indicates is that a condition for one to be a disciple is not just to know the Gospel but also Baptism. Baptism is a necessary step to become a disciple being the act that initiates him into Christ and converts him into his sphere. As Beasley-Murray notes in "Baptism in the NT", that the Baptism in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as an "appropriation" to them(pg90). As dedication and submission. The language of "in the Name of" also has sacrificial conoctations where a sacrifice is offered to God in his Name. This entails that in Baptism, the one Baptized is being offered and given to God. It's entering into a relationship and where is this expressed clearly? In 1Peter 3:21 where the Greek for "appeal/answer for a good conscience" only finds use in establishing contracts of trade. This makes your attempt to explain the contract view a failure because it ignores the fact that it is akin to a document signed to enter into a relationship.

Of course what then about the Baptism in the Spirit anticipated by John earlier? We fortunately have Jesus' own baptism as an example where the Spirit and the Father are both present. The audience of Matthew who pays attention will see a connection between the Trinatarian name at the end and what happens at Jesus' Baptism and possibly see Jesus' baptism as a model and by doing that they will come into Christ, matching Galatians 3 for instance.

On John's prophetic statement which has sadly been abused and perverted by the Evangelical and Baptist pharisees, we can note how a "baptism" by fire in that verse ironically for you Pharisees, refer to God's judgement. There is a Baptism in the Spirit and there is one judgement by fire. Such dual baptisms matches the tone of John throughout this chapter where he focuses on repentance and calls his audience a brood of vipers and God cutting down trees that dont bear fruit, only to be thrown into the fire. In many Jewish writings of the Second Temple, fire symbolized future judgement as well which only makes the view presented by this Baptist as more unlikely. Hence the connection to Pentecost fails.

Immediately after proclaiming the coming one who shall Baptize with the Spirit and Fire(of final judgement), Jesus comes and is Baptized and we are told the Holy Spirit came down upon him in the form of a dove. Recalling the sacrificial undertones of "In the Name of", here the Baptism of Christ also heralds a sacrificial offering, that of Christ. Christ's Baptism hence is for others too as it is His identification with his people and demonstrates humility. This is conveyed by the saying in verse 15 from Christ, "to fulfill all righteousness". Hence Matthew cannot be used to prove the connection to Acts that somehow Pentecost would be the Baptism of fire referred to by Matthew. That makes zero sense at all in context of the entire chapter of reference.

Saying that this "baptism" is some baptism of the Spirit in the Evangelical born again way does not work either. Because the audience would not had understood it in that way. In fact baptism in the background of Matthew would naturally mesh with what is essentially known as Proselyte baptism amongst Jews for Gentiles wanting in. Since John didnt view his people highly he could easily seen them as spiritual Gentiles hence needing the Baptism of repentance which itself will be superceded by Christ's Baptism now as the way in under his Name.

>>2904

Next off Pentecost and Acts. Here I will agree lies the strongest case for the Baptist/Evangelical view because of how the Holy Spirit appears to be received even before water Baptism, such as in Acts 10 where the conversion of Cornelius and his household is recorded. The notion of believing and then getting Baptized or even receiving the Spirit prior to the act isnt proof that it isnt required or it is some empty naked symbol. After all that faith is a required condition for Baptism to be of any benefit is acceptable even to Baptismal Regeneration. Even Luther the Reformer does this, creating a superior view of assurance in contrast to the Evangelical who only ultimately have his own self as the source of it, not God or the external that leads inward.

In ignorance of the Acts Pentecost narrative of chapter 2, Evangelicals and Baptists miss the sequence explicitly told by Peter on how the same gift may be received. In fact it seems this basic point during Pentecost is missed out on them, as if they cut and chop Scripture to only take the parts they like and leave out the others as Peter anticipating the Evangelical eisegesis says,

37 Now when mthey heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, o“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive sthe gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many otherwords he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, x“Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Here we see it plain and simple that Baptism is part of coming into Christ and is the normative step in receiving the Holy Spirit. Later instances show that even those receiving the Spirit before will still get Baptized too, because it is essentially a normal part of conversion and the entrance into Christ. Here we are told that around 3000 people were added into Christ, after they believed and gotten Baptized. This is the two steps to receive the gift of Pentecost and be inside the New Covenant, complimenting the point made by Jesus at the end of Matthew. Proximity of Baptism and Justification by Faith such as in Romans 6 and Galatians 3 or Colossians are there for a reason, because it is part of that Justification. 1Peter 3:21 further compliments this too.

If this is missed out by Evangelicals and Baptists then even this basic semblance to John's Baptism of repentance is lost too, as it is never emphasized. The need to repent is so obvious in the Pentecost speech and the Baptisms that followed resembles the same preaching of John the Baptist. The call for repentance in this context is clear, Israel had killed their God given king and Peter stressed this. This parallel the prophets of the Old Testament where a rebellious Israel is called to return to the Lord. Contra the eisegesis of some that ignore context and fixate merely on "changing of one's mind" to denote not any turning away from sin, the Greek, μετάνοια is used in Second Temple sources like Sirach and Wisdom to litetally denote a turning away from sin. In Ezekiel 33:14–16, 19 we see that repentance demands a change in lifestyle.

In parallel to John's message, here there is also a Baptism for the remission of Sins and to cut off the old man just as it happened in Jewish Prostelyte Baptism. And this is precisely why even those who receive the Spirit before, still get Baptized. Not for some mere naked public declaration but to put aside the old man and enter into Christ's body! The change in lifestyle required is also noted in Acts 6:7 and 20:21. In Acts Acts 2:44–45 speaks of the effects of repentance in believers. They are actively sacrificing, the Greek, οἱ πιστεύοντες, is a present active participle. It's not one and done.

Because this basic point is missed out, Baptists and Evangelicals ultimately misread Acts by isolating context, giving birth to a doctrine that provides no assurance and further distance away from the text

>>2895

Arguing John 6 is just a metaphor doesnt work. Because ultimately the Eucharist can still be used to serve the purpose of Jesus' Disclosure, which is that he is the nourishment and faith in him is requored to access this. Although in that instance a view that will be the Eucharist wont make sense, John's readers will easily see a connection especially given the lack of the Last Supper narrative which the other 3 Gospels has. So where is it in John? Here's a hint, food and drink, body and blood. These are signals for readers to see the connection between the two.

Unfortunately for anti sacramentalists like the Evangelicals, this has implications for what the Eucharist is. It's literally part of how one will be nourished by Christ which explains Paul's language in 1Corinthians well and the participation concept of anamnesis. But given the Evangelical and Baptist ignore this, they are unable to grasp the context and hence oppose Scripture yet again. And no you Pharisee, the participation of Passover isnt the naked symbol in the way your elk typically think about. It is making the salvific past present in some sense. Not by an empty symbol although this naturally lends to symbolic language in the mimesis and rite not in the participation in the Exodus narrative.

Just as the lost disciples thought only with their stomachs fixating on the fleshy details, Evangelicals narrowly focus with their fleshy minds on thinking faith is just some shallow thing to feel good like their doctrine of assurance! The Bible says NO! as I have shown.

The thief on the Cross also provides no excuse for the Baptist or Evangelical to say Baptism is just a naked empty symbol because just as the one Baptized puts on Christ in Baptism as Paul says, the thief literally has Christ before his eyes and his own direct approval, the reality of Baptism is before him hence he doesnt need the water or the signs. This thief also says something that smashes apart Zwlinglianism because he is not telling Jesus to remember him as one remembers what one did in the past. He is telling him to let him into heaven. Shown by Jesus' immediate response. The concrpt of anamnesis works akin to that too in participation. One isnt just remembering what one does in a past, the past is quite literally entered into which extends into Paul's own ministry. Again the connection works and a flow of coherence with harmony to context is formed. You the Evangelical Pharisee doesnt.