/christianity/ - Christian Theology

>denigrating Mary

Im sure that bodes well for you.

>criticizing the rosary because its boring

You dont pray in order to have feelings. You're probabaly not even christian if you don't know this, so I will educate you.

Prayer is supposed to align your own will with the plans that God has for you. To open you up to doing the will of God.

If you feel bored or you fee its mind numbing its all your fault for expecting anything from God instead of offering yourself up to him unconditionally. Boredom is always the flaw of the people who feel it.

>accusing intercessionary prayer of being witchcraft

Witchcraft is by definition connected to devils and demons. So thats just another clueless accusation.

You are just hateful because you yourself dont put in the work to be more spiritually refined and expect some church to cater to you. It is all your personal fault and your hatred is just a sign of your inner weakness.

>>5627

Give me a single verse that tells you pray to anyone other than God. Pro tip: you can't

>>5621

With that much anger coming out of you I fear you won't find God in the Catholic church nor anywhere else.

Have you tried going to an evangelical church? Avoid the mega churches and televangelists and try to find a small comfy Baptist church. The people are all nice, there is a very apparent sense of community, and it's all scriptural. There is a basic outline for southern Baptist churches, but it's not like a catechism where people follow it instead of the Bible. It's pretty much a quick rundown on their beliefs pulled from scripture, and it can be found online (the Baptist Faith and Message). We are told to judge a tree by its fruit, so look around for one with good fruit (which should be most of them). I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have, but it will be a bit later since I'll be busy at work.

>>5628

Give me a single verse that says its wrong to talk to saints.

They can hear you. Also inb4 your retarded ideas of idolatry, because I can already tell that your understanding of idolatry is a 100% exoteric.

>>5634

Where in the Bible does it say that they can hear you?

Have you tried actually understanding Biblical spirituality for once? No you havent.

If you do you would be even more disappointed because it's more of the same just without mention of saints and novenas.

I was once an Evangelical and I was sick of the same thing you are sick of. I didnt get a lack of Scripture but a lack of understanding. I got no spirituality or proper worship. Just feel good concert theatre.

The problem is you dont understand the Biblical meaning. I have heard many Catholics make the same complains as you do and more often than not, it's because they dont even know the Biblical background of how worship is like. This is the problem.

Start Biblical, then see how the Traditions emerge from there. I did this for months and while I am not a Papist, I have become an Anglican, which without its cuckery is the ultimate expression of what is Biblical.

It's time to RETURN to Scriptures and see its context.

>>5623

>>5637

The ironic thing is, Luther is much more Catholic than today's Catholic. His divine service is literally more closer to the Tridentine service than the nonsense today.

>>5621

I agree with the first four. I would also add the Church seems way too friendly with the jews. It doesn’t feel like a real mass. It feels like a hippie values boomer get together + mystic rituals.

>>5636

I'm on my third reading of the bible right now, I read a few chapters a day.

as for the biblical basis of the traditions - no I'm not going to go on some search. I go to mass every single week, isn't the whole point of the sermon at mass supposed to be to inform and educate us about Catholic traditions and teachings and beliefs?

>>5666

and secondly none of my criticisms were about any specific traditions, I'm willing to bet if I had gone to Catholic church in the 40s or 50s I probably wouldn't be making the complaints I'm making now.

The problem is with the church itself, it's becoming an empty meandering hollowed out institution that has in the words of Christ, forgotten it's first love

>>5621

>people don't do what I want them to!!

>BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!! I'M LEAVING!!! D: D: D: D:

Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

>>5666

You would be complaining if you were in church during Paul's time if you are in a Galatian congregation or a Corinthian. Maybe you might even join them in disobeying Paul. The whole point of the sermon is to mostly inform you about what the readings of the day means and how it relates to you which most of your churchmen fail to do, as mine, although fortunately many conservative Anglicans are not this way from my experience.

You need to go on a search. Here's a start. What do you get from the Biblical view of the eucharist? Just the bible, no need to look at the fathers

>>5691

I suppose because of John 6 and Paul's satements about not eating unworthily

I don't know what your point is though, I didn't complain about any Church traditions except for that whole "say this novena 9 days in a row to get a wish crap" which seems like just a semi-traditional popular thing

other than that every single criticism I've raised against the church has also been raised publically by various priests and bishops

>>5725

Ok. Quite fair. But unfortunately Novenas are questionable devotion but your church embrace this. Some Anglo Catholics would too I imagine but for me, that is not appropriate veneration

I have a difficult time giving a fuck about most of the basic bitch theology that 99% of sermons focus on. Be nice to each other and sacrifice yourself to God's works, okay fine.

But lets not talk about the part where everyone's dying alone because there is no culture or society anymore. Watch the end of Mass, watch nobody even socialize.

op is a kike bitch

prove me wrong

pro tip: you can't

>>5621

Try praying. I was catholic most of my life, and when I had my doubts, I started praying to the Lord. Directly. It was so refreshing, and soon he showed me my way (outside of catholicism). I'll be praying for you, brother

>>5760

Hey, I did the same thing, praise the Lord brother!

>>5636

What's an example of a non-cucked conservative Anglican denomination in America? The Episcopal church is an absolute dumpster fire, and even some of the more obscure Anglican dioceses here can be of the female priest and open communion persuasion. Would one be looking for a diocese that still has connections to the Church of England, or would one be essentially forced to seek out roughly the Anglican equivalent of radical breakaways like the Old Calendarists or Sedevacantists?

>>5637

>>5638

I run into a similar problem with Lutheranism in the United States. The most prevalent denom, is also the most nightmarishly cucked (ELCA.) The churches of the two largest conservative denoms, WELS and LCMS, are not only sparse and quite some distance to get to (at least where I live), but also believe in a doctrine known as "objective justification" (i.e. Not only does Jesus' actions on the cross justify those who believe on him, but his actions on the cross also preemptively already forgave all the sins you will ever commit; all you have to do is accept this gift.) Quite frankly, this sounds horrifically non-biblical, and comes off as a borderline prototype of the "You're saved! Now you can do whatever you want!" hyper-grace version of OSAS. ELDONNA is a conservative Lutheran diocese that rejects this doctrine, but they literally have about a couple dozen churches in the entirety of the United States, and the nearest one to me is about a 4-5 hour drive away from me, give or take. In terms of both my finances, time and energy, that's simply a bridge to far for me to attend every Sunday right now until I get a better job, or decide to move out near there.

>>6150

Continuing Anglicanism is the umbrella term for what you're looking for

>>6157

Thanks. I checked out all of the major dioceses and their parishes under this movement, and unfortunately, they are all enough of a distance away from me to disqualify them for now. Depending on how my job search goes, I might be on the move in the future though, so who knows?

>>6164

You should beware that the person whose advice you're considering is the schizo who spams our board about his opposition to sola fide. I would tell you that the non-conformist tradition in the Anglo world are the true inheritors of godly ancient Anglicanism (Baptist, Puritan, methodist, etc)

>>6173

>And the fact that even the most conservative Braaptists (IFB) still allow female "pastors" when it is forbidden by Saint Paul and our Lord's example? Andersonites (correctly) forbid female pastors, but that's a hilarious cult that one cannot help but laugh at.

Misrepresentation

The SBC is not only the largest Baptist denom, it's the largest evangelical and largest Protestant, and we explicitly forbid ordination of women. The outlier is to find a Baptist that does, they're part of the dying minority in the mainline tradition.

The rest of your post is just a ramble not worth engaging

>>6173

>Revelation 8:4

>Revelation 5:8

Saint means any holy (viz. saved) person. It also doesn't say anything about praying to them.

>Psalms

Nothing you've given shows that worship of the angels is okay either.

>>6167

He does raise some interesting arguments though. Take Matthew 24:42 for example:

>42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord will come.

And let's take that verse in full context:

>43 But know this, that if the owner of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for in an hour when you least expect, the Son of Man is coming.

>45 “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master has made ruler over his household to give them food at the appointed time? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 47 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods.

>48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master delays his coming,’ 49 and begins to strike his fellow servants and eat and drink with the drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not look for him and in an hour he is not aware of 51 and will cut him in pieces and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Notice, that Jesus does not say "unbelievers", or "unsaved", but rather uses the term "servant." Implying one who has been brought up in the church and should know better. Overall, the verse seems to imply that a believer should be on watch and actively persevere in their faith, rather than merely just coasting by on the Holy Spirit just taking care of everything for them. And notice the penalty if a believer/saved individual is caught slacking:

>50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not look for him and in an hour he is not aware of 51 and will cut him in pieces and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This doesn't come off as Jesus just coming down with a rolled up newspaper and smacking a saved person on the nose a few times and saying "Bad saved person! Bad, bad saved person! Temporal Earthly punishment and fewer rewards for you!" It comes off as if a believer/saved individual is caught lowering his guard too much, he's got himself a first class ticket to Hell. There's also no indication that this is a case of "a 'believer' who never believed in the first place, but of a believer who dropped the ball and paid the price. The verse doesn't say "If you weren't watchful, you weren't saved in the first place." it clearly says "Be watchful; period. Or else."

Nevertheless, I also still have some concerns about Anglicanism. This vid for example:

https://youtu.be/MkQwRVdV8Dc?t=106

In it, it is pointed out that article 28 of the 39 Articles of Religion, according to the Anglican faith, is a distinctly Calvinistic interpretation of the Presence. This has seemed to have served as a slippery slope to the concept of no one being in danger of taking communion unworthily, since taking communion, under this interpretation, is done in faith (thus if one has no faith or incorrect faith, it is literally impossible for them to receive communion under such a system.). As such, this has also subsequently served as a further slippery slope to open communion in this case.

>>5633

>small comfy Baptist church

This is where I ended up getting baptized on Pentecost. Best day of my life so far.

>>6202

That's great man! I actually haven't gone through a believer's baptism yet, but I was baptised as a baby in the Catholic church. I think I'm gonna go through with it sometime soon, just gotta find a good church to belong to since I'm still relatively new to being a Baptist.

>>6206

I never got baptized before. Converted from heathen to Christ on 4chan.

>>5621 This church is pretty exiting https://www.youtube.com/user/agathering144

>>6210

wat

>>6157

To be quite frank, I don't want to just wait around and sit on my hands until things improve before I attend a church. Since non-corrupted Lutheran and Anglican churches are not an option for me in the near future, what would you recommend based on my limited choices in my local area?

LGBT friendly mainline Protestant denominations around here are not an option (ELCA, Episcopal, Disciples of Christ, etc.)

While their cleaning up of their LGBTness and respect for the sacraments, free will, and ties to Anglicanism make the United Methodists seem like a possible option, their open communion as well as their "abortion is bad, but we still support it's legality" position, turn me off.

There's conservative/evangelical Presbyterians in the area, but Presbyterians are notoriously Calvinistic.

Quite frankly, I find Pentecostals/Charismatics, Churches of Christ and Seventh Day Adventists just plain kooky and untrustworthy,

Baptists, Evangelical/Conservative Methodists (Wesleyan Churches, Church of the Nazarene) and Non-Denom Evangelicals are conservative on most Biblical principles, but are all Memorialist and symbolic in respects to the Eucharist and Baptism. Plus the Southern Baptist Convention is going in a strongly Calvinistic direction, amongst other problems that make me distrustful of it. Independent Baptist churches teach OSAS, which I have doubts about. Free Will Baptists at least teach conditional salvation, but once again, are Memorialist and symbolic in regards to the sacraments.

I really feel frustrated. picking a good church around here feels less like trying to find Christ's true church, and more like a political election: trying to pick the lesser of evils.

>>6266

I'd like to remind you that Christ's true church is the invisible church, there isn't an institution with exclusive authority on the gospel. I think your frustration is still valid, you want to go to a church that strongly teaches what you're convicted is correct theology.

I have my finger close to the pulse of the SBC and the calvinist question isn't a problem enough to leave. The local church is autonomous, any calvinist denominational leaders aren't going to misuse offering money, and only the contemporary megachurches are possibly trending calvinist. You can easily just go to a traditional southern Baptist Church with a non calvinist pastor. Figure out which seminary the pastor went to for a guide.

Cucky resolutions and ERLC are frustrating too but nothing to leave over.

You should go to a Baptist Church because the Baptist view on the ordinances is the correct one. Why do you feel otherwise?

>>6266

>I really feel frustrated. picking a good church around here feels less like trying to find Christ's true church, and more like a political election: trying to pick the lesser of evils.

It is because your faith is weak. You are looking for a feel-good congregation in line with your political views, but Christian faith is not about feeling good.

1. Trust the Lord Jesus Christ and submit your life to Him.

2. Ask for guidance!

3. Get directed to your parish.

Sometimes the Lord's plan for you is a plan you don't like. But being a child of God means you still submit yourself and go through with it to serve Him.

>>6269

>the Baptist view on the ordinances is the correct one. Why do you feel otherwise?

To be frank, I'm starting to lean towards a sacramentalist point of view, but still feel torn.

One one hand, in all of the synoptic gospels, when he institutes the Eucharist, he says some variation of "Eat/Drink, this is my Body, this is my Blood." Proponents of the Real Presence, use this as evidence because he doesn't explain the concept any further beyond that, and supposedly, anytime he's utilized symbolism or allegory or parable, he's always broken it down and explained plainly. Yet that's not always the case. He uses other allegories, such as describing himself variously as the True Vine, The Good Shepard, The Door, not to mention John 7: 37-38. He also maintains an air of allegory in the early part of John 10 that creates a division between those that get it, and those that don't. Which is in the spirit of he himself explaining things in parables for the sake of those who would get it, and those who wouldn't.

But more than, that, are Jesus's own words after the "Take, Eat/Drink this is my Body/Blood" formula. In Luke, he doesn't say "Do this to achieve salvation" or "Do this to continue to receive Grace" or "Do this to be further Sanctified" or "Do this to become one with me", he simply says "Do this in remembrance of me." That's it. Kind've underwhelming in light of what the Eucharist is supposed to embody in light of the concept of the Real Presence. The only other things he says right after in the synoptic Gospels are some variation of I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” Which seems to imply that he's looking forward to having such a special fellowship meal again with his disciples in the Kingdom to come in the future.

Then there is the fact that Jesus institutes the Eucharist before he even undergoes his Passion. He says "Take Eat/Drink this is my Body/Blood" when he himself is right there before them, as a human being, and thus not capable of being in the bread and wine simultaneously at that time. He was divine, but simultaneously still a man at that point, subject to physical travel, exhaustion and sleep, hunger, thirst and pain, etc. In fact, he doesn't display any inclination towards instantaneous spiritual travel until he is in his glorified body in the aftermath of the resurrection, when the disciples cannot recognize him. In fact during one of these instances recorded in Luke 24 30-31, as soon as they received the bread, they recognized him. Or even "remembered" him or "discerned" him.

>>6291

Then there's the fact that John 6, as a defense or explanation of the Real Presence, makes absolutely zero sense within the context of scripture.

Firstly, after he feeds the five thousand, immediately, the people misinterpret his sign as that of a Messiah coming as a worldly power, and thus he withdraws from them. A few verses later, those same people track down Jesus. He immediately calls them out for their carnal mindset in verses 26-27, and instructs them that their work is to believe in him in verse 29. After they ask for more signs and bread, he tells them to instead seek out the true bread from God, which is He who comes down from Heaven and gives life to this world. They then say “Lord, give us this bread always.”

This parallels John 4, where Jesus, speaking to the Samaritan woman, says: “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst." To which she responds with: “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not thirst, nor come here to draw.” In a similar manner, Jesus responds to his inquirers in John 6 with “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to Me shall never hunger, and whoever believes in Me shall never thirst."

He then proceeds to call them out on their lack of faith, which is confirmed by them murmuring among themselves about the fact that he states that he comes from heaven. He then proceeds to describe himself as the Bread of Life, and that whoever eats of his flesh and drinks his blood will have eternal life, in contrast to normal food with which one still dies, like the Hebrews in the wilderness. In response to some of his disciples saying "This is a hard saying", he then proceeds to confront them with "Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Here he seems to be rebuking them for processing his teachings on a fleshly, literal level, than on a spiritual level. After these doubting disciples leave, he asks the main 12:

“Do you also want to go away?” To which Peter responds with a confession Jesus being the Christ. So as with the Samaritan woman, Jesus seems to be discussing food, drink and water on a spiritually nourishing level, rather than literal. Also, unlike the doubters from both the 5 thousand fed and the disciples, the Samaritan woman was brought to faith with far more mundane signs.

>>6292

Then there is a further problem with John 6 from a chronological and context level. The Last Supper, when Jesus institutes the Eucharist, does not occur until John 13, seven whole chapters later. Why would he attempt to explain the Real Presence of the Eucharist at this point, when he had not even instituted it yet, and thus there was no context for his sayings in this regard. It would be like if I traveled back in time to 1st century Israel, and proceeded to take a stick, drive it into the ground, and start saying things like "Now shift the stick to R in order to reverse, then D to Drive, and back to P to park again" while shifting the stick around. Cars having not been invented yet, and thus having no conception of a car, Hebrews hearing my instructions would be utterly baffled. Jesus spoke in parables in order that some might get it, and others not, but he never spoke in such an out of context way as to utterly baffle his listeners.

One might say that since the Gospel of John was the last of the gospels to be written, that it was written for an audience that would already "get it" and understand in the first place by then. But even with this theory, the way that the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 is executed doesn't make sense. Within the context of the passage and surrounding passages of the account, how can the doubting bread fed Hebrews and the doubting disciples reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of the Eucharist, when the Eucharist wasn't even instituted yet nor even stated nor demonstrated before their very eyes? Especially in light of verses throughout this account that demonstrate that the doubters were stuck in a non-spiritual mode of thinking that Jesus brought to light and rebuked them for; that they doubted that he even came from heaven, even saying amongst themselves the old “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" line, which is a standard refrain throughout the gospels of doubters of Jesus' divinity; and the fact that this episode ultimately concludes with the remaining disciples expressing belief in Jesus being the Christ, (with the explicit exception of Judas, of course.)

It would make much more sense for the author, John, to have this speech as a defense of the Real Presence being said during the Last Supper before, after, or during the institution of the Eucharist. As such, without an actual Real Presence Eucharist for them to reject, the doubters who desert Jesus in John 6 come across as rejecting Jesus' divinity, rather than the Real Presence, in contrast to Simon Peter who confesses him as the Christ.

>>6293

Still, I must admit that his references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood, seem to align with what he says with the Eucharist a bit too well. Then there is the strongest supporting passage for the Real Presence: 1 Corinthians 11: 17-34. Especially this passage: "Therefore whoever eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and unhealthy among you, and many die." Considering that one can partake in the Eucharist in such a way as to induce damnation on oneself, and that taking it unworthily caused literal sickness and death, seems to imply that the Eucharist is bit more than just "Thinking about and remembering Jesus a lot while eating bread and drinking wine or grape juice."

Then we come back to Jesus' declaration of it's purpose in Luke 22:19: "Do this in remembrance of Me.” In the original Greek, the word "remembrance" in this phrase is rendered as "anamnēsin":

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/22-19.htm

https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_364.htm

Thayer's Greek Lexicon seems to connote that this particular word conveys "an unassisted recalling" or a "remembrance prompted by another." Which seems to coincide with the Real Presence concept of "anamnesis":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_(Christianity)

Then again, Thayer's Greek Lexicon also implies that synonyms for more passive versions of remembrance are interchangeable, and HELPS Word-studies also indicate the word could be interpreted as: "deliberate recollection, done to better appreciate the effects (intended results) of what happened; active, self-prompted recollection especially as a memorial (memorial sacrifice).":

https://biblehub.com/greek/364.htm

>>6294

Then we come to the issue of context again. 1 Corinthians 11: 17-22, goes over matters of divisions, factions (possibly over doctrine, personal issues amongst individual members or groups, or both) and partakers conducting themselves at the supper like boorish gluttons fighting over the last slice of pizza at a Golden Corral buffet. Verse 26, in particular, seems to highlight a doctrinal issue. As for these verses: "Therefore whoever eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

"For he who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body." Body, in this case can also double as a description of Christ's Body: the Church. I am reminded of when Jesus is brought before Herod in Luke, and refuses to beform signs before him as an act of mercy, as doing such a sign for one viewing him as a glorified magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, would have brought Herod greater condemnation. There was also a sense throughout the Old Testament that the Hebrews having such a direct experience of God through viewing his cloud a flame forms, as well as the numerous signs and miracles, brought them greater condemnation when they murmured or outright rebelled. Thus the tendency during that period for God to strike particularly obstinate people dead.

Even in the New Testament, there is the case of Ananias and Sapphira being struck dead for lying to the Holy Spirit, and thus God himself. I wonder how many people in the modern world, are struck dead for lying to the Holy Spirit, or for taking the Eucharist in a half-hearted or unworthy manner? If one buys into the cessationist view, the miracles performed during the early church were for the same reason that Jesus performed signs and miracles during his ministry: to validate and give credibility to the early church. Once this goal was accomplished, such signs and miracles have seemed to decrease over time. Thus, I wonder if the sickness and death, and warnings of condemnation, were to emphasize the solemn and sacred nature of the Eucharist to future generations, whether it be Real Presence, Memorialist, Spiritual, Consubstantiation, or something in between. Overall, I'm left with lingering doubts over the precise nature of the Eucharist, based on scripture alone.

My doubts about Baptism being a mere ordinance stem basically from Peter's exhortation to be baptized for the remission of sins and to then be filled with the Holy Spirit, as well as Jesus' explaination to Nicodemus that one must be born of water and the Spirit to be saved (I find the amniotic fluid interpretation of the water part as coming off as desperate rationalization.) Yet there are many examples in the Bible of individuals and entire groups believing and confessing faith and even being filled with the Holy Spirit, prior to being baptized.

>>6295

As for my doubts about the Southern Baptist Convention, they go beyond mere Calvinistic resurgence. While not Head level Pastors, females ordained as pastors of Youth and Senior Citizen groups have been creeping in:

https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/02/17/southern-baptist-megachurch-ordains-female-pastor/

https://oakmontchurch.com/about-oakmont/staff

There's also the fact that the SBC literally recommends Messianc Judaism Synagogues on it's Church Search engine:

http://www.sbc.net/church/2014088008/beth-emet-messianic-synagogue

And seems to have some form of fellowship or communion with Messianic Judaism:

http://sbmessianic.net

Not to mention, they're starting to get a little too comfortable with some questionable, at best, folk:

https://youtu.be/qLMV_6YUWsk

Southern and Independent Baptists also teach Eternal Security/Perseverance of the Saints/OSAS/etc. which I have my doubts about as I have trouble reconciling this doctrine with the various passages of the Bible that speak of being on your guard, watchful, and persevering, in a manner that does not seem to indicate being put on autopilot by the Holy Spirit: >>6201

>>6296

>>6289

>It is because your faith is weak.

You may be right.

>You are looking for a feel-good congregation

It's actually the opposite extreme. Last time I went with a church, it was based on warm fuzzies, and it bit me in the butt in the long term. If anything, now I am over cautious, and hyper-critical, due to not wanting to make the same mistake again.

>in line with your political views,

I'm sorry, but if you think things like LGBT tolerance, female clergy, Biblical errancy vs. inerrancy, passive-aggressive support for abortion, Calvinistic doctrine, Eternal Security vs Conditional Salvation, monergistic vs synergistic salvation or damnation, Baptism being salvific or symbolic, and sacraments vs ordinances are just "politics" and not important essential parts of discerning the truthfulness and fruitfulness of a church, and that I should just throw my hands up, and just join a local ELCA parish if the "Holy Spirit" leads me there…. I don't know what to say to you. I'm also sorry about the ugly truth that any church worth it's salt is going to at the very minimum lean Right of Center. The farther Left a church is, the more degenerate it is. Period.(the same could be said of a church leaning too hard Right, but nevertheless, a good church is going to be somewhere on the less extreme side of the conservative spectrum.)

>>6229 If you lack excitement amongst believers then you should check out this church

>>6297

Well, I started as the Deus Vult type after my conversion, before asking the Spirit to direct me to a church.

For my baptism the Lord led me to a small parish, which is full of very friendly sinners.

The only people with conservative views are the elder and the pastor, while the youth is happily fornicating outside Sunday service, as usual for Protestants.

Am I happy with that? Simple answer: That's not the point. This world is fallen. Our Lord clearly wants me there, so He can execute His plan. That's the only thing, which matters. Maybe He needs me to reboot this parish into traditional-conservative later, who knows.

Again: Ask God for guidance and then go through with it, even if you don't like the answer. Nobody said being a follower of Jesus Christ is easy. Submit to His will and things will fall into place.

>>6291

>>6292

>>6293

>>6294

You've put a lot of thought into this. The most important question is how it affects salvation, is the Catholic view compatible with Ephesians 2? Or does that constitute a works salvation false gospel.

It is my contention that it does, which is why we so urgently oppose it. The ordinance view still places great spiritual significance on the Lord's supper and baptism.

Where on you on the baptismal mode debate? Can baptism mean anything besides what it literally means, immersion?

Why do you reject eternal security? Are you sure those trouble passages are about salvation and not about fellowship?

>>6304

>literally means, immersion?

It's not just immersion.

baptízō - to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water.

>>6313

Okay more precisely the literal meaning is "dip under"

Can Biblical baptism be anything other than full immersion? Given the absence of a different mode of baptism, we should say "no"

That debate is secondary to the soteriological debate though

>>6299

A church with sound doctrine, and imperfect people is one thing, and quite normal. But a congregation that consists of two people who hold to Christian views, and the rest are completely lackadaisical? The Bible specifically instructs us to not be evenly yoked to non believers, and to not have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but to instead, expose them. How do you know for sure that the Holy Spirit led you to this parish? The spirits are to be tested, as scripture states. How do you know for sure that Satan is not just exploiting a subconscious egotistical pseudo-messiah complex fantasy about being the heroic true faith parishioner who single-handedly turns a church around, that you hold, in order to trick you into boarding the church equivalent of a Titanic heading straight for an iceberg, that God didn't want you to get on in the first place? Also:

>the youth is happily fornicating outside Sunday service, as usual for Protestants.

That shouldn't be "usual" for Protestants. At all.

>>6304

>is the Catholic view compatible with Ephesians 2?

I must admit, verses 14 through 18 have me thinking. Still, there are enough verses that seem to imply that there is more to Baptism than just a simple public declaration ritual to still leave me with some doubt and discomfort:

https://youtu.be/JwxHzo0QVYY

Still, while >>6313 makes a good point, subtly referencing the purifying and initiation washing rituals practiced by the Israelites even before baptism as we know it in the Christian sense, As Hebrews 10:1 puts it best: "For the law is a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of those things." Throughout the New Testament, there are implications of the New Covenant moving away from surface level rituals, to something more spiritually substantive.

>Where on you on the baptismal mode debate? Can baptism mean anything besides what it literally means, immersion?

I think the Didache puts it best: "Concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptize, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," in running water. But if thou hast no running water, baptize in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head "in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."

In other words, total immersion in running water is ideal, but if this is not practical or obtainable, the more important thing is to baptize by any means necessary. While it's not a deal breaker for me, necessarily, I do find the Evangelical "immersion only; period." philosophy a bit unnecessarily legalistic in regards to this aspect.

>Why do you reject eternal security? Are you sure those trouble passages are about salvation and not about fellowship?

Well for one, the warning passage I mention here >>6201 has Jesus specifically use the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth." Anytime Jesus makes use of that imagery, usually also accompanied by "outer darkness", it's always a euphemism for Hell. In other words, he's literally saying "Be watchful and vigilante, and not lazy in your faith, or I will sentence you to Hell." There are just so many warning verses about persevering, the Devil being a hunting Lion, finish the race, he who lasts, work out your salvation with fear and trembling, being shining lights to the world, requiring specific instruction on behavior and morality issues, etc. That doesn't sound like monergistic cruise control, but at the very least seems to imply, at the bare minimum, something synergistic, at least in terms of our active submission to the Lord. Even the famous verses on predestination and the elect use the words "foreknowledge." And it seems logical, that level of foreknowledge would be exclusive to God, not us. Plus the whole "well, since so and so didn't act this way, they weren't saved in the first place" comes off as 20/20 hindsight backwards rationalization.

Why do you think such passages are just about fellowship?

Honestly, the more I think about it, while I'm going to continue to pray, read and research, for now, I'm just going to stick with the Baptist church I've been going to. Outside of the Eucharist and Baptism issues, literally everything else about the church is great. All of the high liturgical sacramental churches within reasonable distance from me have nothing to offer me outside of the supposed Real Presence and Real Baptism. Everything else about them is either pozzed or a theological train wreck. If God wants to move me in a different direction in the future, so be it.

>>6356

We don't trivialize (water) baptism by rejecting that it's salvific, it's still a very spiritual event to be treated very carefully since it was commanded by God.

As valuable as the didache is as an ancient Christian historical document, if we reach a competing conclusion from the text of scripture it must supercede that fallible document. It is my contention that it does, because the word means immersion and that's what is modeled in the text. It is a compromise that we are not allowed to make to do anything less.

This is not legalism, legalism means viewing a behavior as necessary for salvation.

This is also not a uniformly evangelical position, it's a baptist position. Presbyterians like the late RC Sproul are 100% evangelical but support infant baptism, as compared to his peer John Macarthur.

Have you considered the possibility that Matthew 24 is talking about physical salvation from the persecution at tribulation period? Even if the salvation here means spiritual salvation from damnation to hell, anyone who doesn't endure sounds like who Jesus refers to in Matt 7, "I never knew you". They never genuinely believed, and in the final analysis they don't have salvation.

I'm not seeing a contradiction with OSAS.

I don't think that one is about fellowship, I think passages like John 15 are about fellowship but are leveraged into an arminian argument.

>>6372

Glad to hear that