[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. - 1 Peter 4:14
Name
Email
Subject
REC
STOP
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload5 per post.


| Rules | Meta | Log | The Gospel |

File: 0d596b09bc2ae60⋯.png (178.71 KB,589x589,1:1,20190529_193039.png)

2eb8cc No.6413 [Last50 Posts]

Just a reminder…

The Roman church isn't catholic.

The eastern church isn't orthodox.

The one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church is the church invisible, which is comprised of Christians everywhere in the world who profess the gospel message famously an eloquently declared in the reformation as Sola Fide. This is the gospel according to Luther, Augustine, Paul, and Abraham. Today orthodox Christianity is culturally known in the west as "evangelical protestantism".

<Galatians 1:8 NASB — But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2eb8cc No.6414

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Last generation's greatest teacher on this topic

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f97e00 No.6439

based

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a6666e No.6462

>>6413

>>6414

Blessed OP, blessed first post, blessed based teacher (RIP)!

How can one thread be so based?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fce54d No.6577

File: f427568bd597fe6⋯.png (79.95 KB,444x273,148:91,PiusX.png)

Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 – 590): “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. …Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. …Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. …[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church.” (Denzinger 246-247)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 – 604): “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.” (Moralia)

Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 – 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 – 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 – 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 – 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 – 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)

“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)

Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 – 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)

Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 – 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 – 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 – 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

There is not a single prot that is saved.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6578

>>6577

Your thread on cuckboard didn't get any (you)s huh?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

cb8d8f No.6584

>>6577

Jesus Christ (B.C. ∞ – A.D. ∞): "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Repent, heretic. Oh, and make sure you ask Jesus for forgiveness, not Mary. Mary can't hear you.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

cb8d8f No.6585

>>6414

I hope I get to meet R.C. in heaven. God bless him.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fce54d No.6588

File: 870a1f71eba622e⋯.jpg (98.98 KB,1066x484,533:242,True_Church.jpg)

>>6578

I'm glad you responded.

>>6584

>Repent, heretic

Uh, once saved always saved sh*tlord. I was raised Evangelical. Repentance is WERKZ!

>I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

Amen. If you believed He was the Truth, you would Join the Barque of Peter, the new Ark of Noah; the Catholic Church.

>Mary can't hear you.

Revelation 8:4

Revelation 5:8

David prays to Angels in the Psalms and he calls upon them to worship the Lord (Psalm 148:2, Psalm 103:20)

In Isaiah 6 we can see a Seraphim being used as the instrument God uses to give grace. Protestants love Isaiah 64:6 and Romans 3:10 - yet somehow think God almighty has *any* right to always answer the prayers of a sinner directly.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

27f36e No.6593

>>6588

>somehow think God almighty has *any* right to always answer the prayers of a sinner directly

<God doesn't have the right to intrude on Mary's prerogative

WEW LAD

We're reaching levels of paganism that shouldn't even be possible

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6595

File: 7aa34501ca90d61⋯.png (454.16 KB,936x690,156:115,we-want-you.png)

>>6413

>The eastern church isn't orthodox.

The Church founded by Christ isn't Orthodox.

>church is the church invisible

As the time goes, your invisible church becomes more and more invisible. As >>6364 explains, your ship has shipwrecked. Those who want to remain based exist on isolated and ever shrinking islands of conservatism. These islands are the wreckage of the ship and won't be on the surface for long.

In the West the Orthodox Church has became refuge for conservative Christians. Now it is time for you to make the choice of your life: to board the ship whose captain is Christ or to be a man overboard.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

27f36e No.6597

>>6595

>In the West the Orthodox Church has became refuge for conservative Christians

More like refuge for unbelieving LARPers

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6598

>>6597

Philip found Nathaniel and said to him, “We have found the one of whom Moses in the law and the prophets, have written: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph!”

Nathanael asked him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”

Philip replied, “Come and see!”

(John 2:45-46)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fce54d No.6605

File: 23e8db27d04902b⋯.jpg (124.22 KB,500x679,500:679,insight.jpg)

>>6593

>God doesn't have the right to intrude on Mary's prerogative

Our Lord perfectly follows the fourth commandment. His first public miracle was at the the behest of His mother. I wouldn't want to come before our Lord if I've insulated His mother.

>MUH PAGANISM

Hilarious, because Catholics were martyred by pagans for hundreds of years. You are cursing them with your blithe arguments that have been refuted (no doubt) millions of times. Your entire tradition relies on:

a) Literacy, uncommon until Luther's time

b) The Catholic Church actually determining which Scripture is inspired and which isn't (Prots love Christ-killing Jews so much that they follow their determination of the Canon, even though most Church Fathers say that the Masoretic tradition was corrupted)

c) Poor exegesis. "Born again" always meant baptism. He says you must eat the flesh of the Son of man to have life in you. He never writes or commands anyone to write. In talking about the New covenant, Ezekiel in 36:23-29, writes about clean water being sprinkled, and God cleansing his people from all filthiness, in tandem with his Spirit being poured out, giving people a new heart, giving people the ability to walk in his statutes. Isaiah 44:3 also talks about the Holy Spirit being poured out with water and many blessings to follow. In John 1:29-34, Jesus is baptized, and the Holy Spirit comes upon Jesus. John promises that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. What does Jesus do after he tells Nicodemus in 3:5 about being born of water and spirit? He goes out baptizing in John 3:22. This is the only time that Jesus and the disciples baptize in the gospels, emphasizing even more that being born of water and spirit means baptism (besides John 4, immediately following this). What does John do? He baptizes other people. In the context of baptism, John uses the same term "anothen" in 3:31, as was used in John 3:3 and 3:5. It can interchangeably be translated as "born again" or "begotten from above." It would strain credulity to say that all this is a coincidence. All Christians until the 16th century thought that born again meant baptism. On the other hand nothing here or anywhere else in the Bible does being born again mean accepting Jesus as Lord in your heart.

Other passages proving baptismal regeneration include:

1 Peter 3:20-21. 20

Acts 22:16

Acts 2:38-39 38

Mark 16:16

1 Cor. 12:12-13. 12

Colossians 2:11-13

Galatians 3:26-27

Titus 3:5

d) Your disunity is more proof the Holy Ghost is not with you. Right now 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is being fulfilled, and most Catholics aren't even Catholic, sure. But that doesn't mean you don't need to be in the Church to be saved.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6606

>>6595

What are you talking about?

>The church founded by Christ isn't orthodox

What do you think orthodox means?

Yes, the culture is post Christian. Good churches still exist as a remnant. What is the sinking ship and who are you recruiting for?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6607

>>6593

Don't feed the troll

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6611

File: c75f6e9d39ea91c⋯.jpg (526.11 KB,1500x1189,1500:1189,157f.110.jpg)

>>6606

OP: The eastern church isn't orthodox.

me: You are speaking about the Church founded by Christ.

> What is the sinking ship

>>6364

> and who are you recruiting for?

For the Church where one can make a safe stand against the deceits of the upcoming Antichrist, the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6615

>>6611

You still are not making sense.

What did you mean by "The Church founded by Christ isn't Orthodox."

was that supposed to be an >implying ?

Again, what is the ship? Post-christian western culture? Or are you saying that western churches are invariably compromised?

I'm noticing a trend that posters with your flag try to talk in vague terms like it's more profound somehow. Just speak directly so we can have a dialogue.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6626

>>6615

>was that supposed to be an >implying ?

yes.

>Or are you saying that western churches are invariably compromised?

I only said that if you looking for a safe place, the Orthodox Church is such place.

In the Protestant world there are hundreds of different churches. Despite that, until recently each of them tried to be faithful to its beginning and each of them remained more or less stable. If someone wasn't satisfied by the existing churches, he had to found a new church. In fact, this is how almost all Protestant churches started.

Recently, however, this is no longer so. The Protestant churches are no longer what they were 100 years ago. They become more and more influenced by liberalism and political correct speech. This is more obvious with the so called High churches. I don't know about your Baptist church, maybe it is spared from this for now.

All this is, of course, bad, very bad. But as the time goes and these processes advance more and more, it becomes more and more obvious that the Orthodox Church is not just one among the hundreds of churches, that there is something special about this particular Church, ancient but not antiquated, old in centuries but young in spiritual strength. So at least something good comes from all the corruption…

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4c1727 No.6628

>>6605

shut up, nerd

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6629

File: 8f3186638e7628a⋯.jpg (366.27 KB,1200x1187,1200:1187,greek orthodox molesters.jpg)

>>6626

ok I understand you now.

Your analysis of the state of protestantism isn't accurate. The mainline denominations have all succumbed to liberalism, and the evangelical denominations have not.

>it becomes more and more obvious that the Orthodox Church is not just one among the hundreds of churches, that there is something special about this particular Church

Untrue. Liberalism and corruption are rife among the eastern orthodox.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6630

>>6629

An interesting image you have here. But it only proves the quality of the Orthodox Church which reacted to each case justly and with no attempts of cover-up. Of course, I could say that these cases are not numerous, that they concern low-rank clerics (or even non-clerics in at least two of the cases on the image), that even Christ had one Judas among his 12 Apostles so it isn't much if the Orthodox Church has few Judas among its many thousands clerics. This, however, is not important. What matters is the reaction to these cases.

>Liberalism and corruption are rife among the eastern orthodox.

I suggest you actually visit an Orthodox church near the place you live and get acquainted with the people there.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6631

File: fe9b086ec2559d8⋯.png (33.31 KB,640x916,160:229,abortion.png)

File: 8a32934a32588ce⋯.png (292.81 KB,1856x1320,232:165,Frequency of reading scrip….png)

File: 2d5fe798b7bd4a5⋯.png (244.95 KB,1856x1320,232:165,Views about same-sex marri….png)

>>6630

here's some more images of interest

the point is that the oca doesn't stand up to the claim of being uniquely unaffected by the moral revolution, and even fails in comparison to the alternatives

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6632

File: d84f0979be3208b⋯.jpg (1.19 MB,1600x1060,80:53,oca.for.life.jpg)

>>6631

As I said, you should visit an actual Orthodox Church and talk with the priest and the people there. Ask them if they approve abortions or same-sex marriages. The statistics on your pictures include mostly people who call themselves Orthodox only by tradition and don't even go to Church regularly.

> the point is that the oca doesn't stand up to the claim of being uniquely unaffected by the moral revolution

https://oca.org/reflections/misc-authors/the-homosexual-christian

https://oca.org/News/headline-news/strong-orthodox-presence-at-dc-march-for-life-despite-the-weather

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6633

File: 517f0c4a4f88c2e⋯.jpg (497.97 KB,1200x1600,3:4,Thanksgiving 020.JPG)

>>6632

I'm glad to see conservative positions held by the oca leadership, and I'm sure there are charming people involved. My intent was to prove that the narrative of eastern orthodox churches being the singular bastion against liberal theology is wrong.

You can't dismiss the statistics because nominals were polled, nominals were polled for every group. I'm not intending to say that this represents what pious regular churchgoers say, it's what self reporting members of each group say on each topic.

Yes, the oca is a defender of many traditional Christian positions (can't always say the same for the Greek archdiocese). The operative word there was uniquely. American evangelicalism is going strong, and it only gets more encouraging the more fundamentalist you look among evangelicals.

In the west, eastern orthodoxy is a non-evangelistic ethnic club. It's not a lifeboat for traditional Western Christians, it's a ship that never set sail, so spare us the vapid, substanceless appeal to larp with you.

All of this is just looking in terms of conservatism, which is ancillary to the fundamental question of Christianity: what is the gospel?

The gospel according to that ethnic club and the gospel according to the Protestant reformers are contradictory, and anyone choosing between the two needs to find that answer before he should take a step in any direction. I'm telling anyone at all listening that the Bible teaches sola fide. You can have eternal life by believing on Jesus, and only by this faith. If you trust in a baptism, a communion, or any sacrament, your soul is in peril and who knows when you're going to die.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6647

>>6633

>You can't dismiss the statistics because nominals were polled, nominals were polled for every group.

I can because in the Orthodox Church the difference between nominals and actual practitioners is HUGE.

>can't always say the same for the Greek archdiocese

Do you have something specific in mind? I'd suggest that you disregard the criticism of Orthodox by Orthodox. Not because this criticism is always unfounded, but rather because the standard of the Orthodox is too high…

>In the west, eastern orthodoxy is a non-evangelistic ethnic club

Non-evangelistic? No. And in US in most places it is not even ethnic (in many places in Europe it still is). The Christian Church started as Jewish ethnic club but the message we bring to the world is not ethic. Whatever the origin of a particular Orthodox Church, Greek, Arabic, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, it brings the same true Gospel to the world.

>All of this is just looking in terms of conservatism, which is ancillary to the fundamental question of Christianity: what is the gospel?

I intentionally limited my talk to conservatism. But since you widened the topic, let me ask: what about the Pentecostals or the other Charismatics? Do you think that people who are led to visible union with the devils can bring true Gospel to the world?

>If you trust in a baptism, a communion, or any sacrament, your soul is in peril and who knows when you're going to die.

You are in error and you don't know the fullness of the message of the Bible.

This is what Christ says to you and you should believe it, or else your soul is in peril: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever disbelieves will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

59586b No.6653

>>6647

>whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever disbelieves will be condemned

That verse doesn't say anything about believers who aren't baptized, and to throw them in with disbelievers is a huge error. What about the thief on the cross, who wasn't baptized at all but was still told by Jesus Himself that he would be saved?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6661

File: fdcdc22d4845c52⋯.png (934.96 KB,847x757,847:757,reasonable.png)

>>6647

>1

totally speculative. Show us a statistical reason that the survey data isn't representative.

>2

Pic

>3

Yes, non evangelistic ethnic club. You don't do missions anywhere close to evangelicals and your membership is almost entirely limited to those with ancestral ties to those nations in eastern Christian traditions.

I'm not saying that a homogenous congregation is a bad thing, but the tradition is foreign and uninviting to outsiders. You don't see black EO churches, Chinese EO churches, etc.

>4

Pentecostals can be saved in spite of the heresy of charismaticism, since it isn't soteriological. Most spiritual giftings among Pentecostals are entirely in their minds, but if one undeniably demonstrated such a supernatural power then they would be certainly without the holy spirit, since they are practicing witchcraft. So to answer directly, no.

All we can do is look at someone's profession of the gospel. Does someone trust in faith alone? I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are saved until outside evidence shows up otherwise. Do they put their trust in works? I presume they aren't saved, but in the inverse they could actually be saved in spite of their membership in a heretical group like the RCC.

>5

Baptism and belief are inextricably linked, but baptism isn't the necessary condition for salvation.

Tell me this, why do you dunk a baby who can't profess belief? How does that jive with the Bible's invariable format of belief then baptism?

Are you trusting that the act of baptism has a hand in saving you? Do you see why I would take problem with that given Eph 2?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6662

>>6647

Is also like to point out that there are two baptisms (of the spirit and of water), and every time you consult a passage about baptism you must establish which one it is being discussed.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6670

>>6662

And everytime someone receives the Spirit, it is never said to be baptism. Funny how that works

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3991e0 No.6677

>>6653

And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

The original Greek had no commas. And we know that our Lord didn't actually go to Heaven right after dying. So, the following would also be a proper translation:

And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee this day(,) thou shalt be with me in paradise.

That makes much more sense. And, the command to baptize was instituted after the Resurrection. What He means by "paradise" here is the Limbo of the Fathers.

>>6670

>>6605

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6687

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>6661

>>1

>totally speculative.

I've already answered this: "Come and see!". Nothing more should be necessary. >>6598

>>2

>Pic

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/roadsfromemmaus/2015/09/17/no-the-orthodox-church-is-not-giving-joe-biden-its-highest-award/

>the tradition is foreign and uninviting to outsiders.

There is nothing foreign or ethnic in the Orthodox tradition, it is truly universal. Except the music style in some cases.

> You don't see black EO churches

Vid

>Chinese EO churches

The icon of Chinese new-martyrs. The Orthodox Church is the only mainstream Christian Church which is forbidden in China.

>baptism isn't the necessary condition for salvation

Baptism is what the Christian Church practiced since the Apostles and a practice very well documented in the Bible. Of course, everyone is free to invent his own rules for salvation while having the illusion that his inventions are Biblical.

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16)

"“Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins" (Acts. 2:38)

"Now why do you wait? Arise, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the Name of the Lord." (Acts. 22:16)

"This is an antitype of baptism, which now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)

>>6670

>And everytime someone receives the Spirit, it is never said to be baptism.

"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, even as on us at the beginning. I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John indeed baptized in water, but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit.’" (Acts. 11:15-16)

>>6653

>That verse doesn't say anything about believers who aren't baptized,

Then you say Christ speaks empty words.

>What about the thief on the cross, who wasn't baptized at all but was still told by Jesus Himself that he would be saved?

There was no baptism during the time of the Old Testament and the New Testament begins to work on Pentecost, the birthday of the Church. Besides, the martyrdom of the martyrs is their baptism.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6688

File: e81eed08ee0e64b⋯.jpg (198.5 KB,1105x1200,221:240,chinese.jpg)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b5a40f No.6689

File: c4dba6eec0c7fc1⋯.jpg (94.15 KB,616x616,1:1,c4dba6eec0c7fc1baf971f1d7e….jpg)

>>6631

>A heretical group has us all beat on this issue.

F—ing digusting!

>>6677

>J-jesus nor the thief wasn't in heaven

>The no comma argument

Nobody talks in formalities when they are a bloody stump on the cusp of death, ESPECIALLY to someone who has no reason to be spoken to with formalities, i.e. a justly dying criminal.

Treating Besides, σήμερον semeron is never used in a formality sense anywhere in Scripture or even outside literature. It's refers to a time of day. Where is your primary sources or secondary sources that means some announcement formality? No, the lack of punctuation doesn't count. Amen ("Truly") is already an appropriate formality anyway to quickly get the actuality point across, not semeron. You're as bad as annilhationists/soul sleep enthusiasts who use this argument. Perhaps worse, because at least they don't deny the true Gospel which requires no external work on our part like physical baptism.

σήμερον adv. of time (Hom.+ [the Attic τήμερον is not found in our lit.: B-D-F §34, 1; Mlt-H. 279]; loanw. in rabb.) today Mt 6:11 (BMetzger, How Many Times Does ἐπιούσιος Occur Outside the Lord’s Prayer? ET 60, ’57, 52-54; see ἐπιούσιος); 16:3; 21:28; Lk 4:21; 23:43 (=before today is over as Philostrat., Vi. Soph. 1, 25, 14)

Danker, Frederick William and Walter Bauer Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (BDAG)

"Not only would he have a place in the kingdom, whenever that would be established, but that very day he would enter Paradise. Truly marks the following words as emphatic and important (see on 4:24). Today is occasionally taken with the preceding words, but there seems no reason for this. Almost all scholars agree that it refers to being in Paradise.

Morris, L. (2008). 'Luke. Nottingham, England: IVP Academic."

"Even this very day they will be together in the place of the righteous…" Darrell Bock. Luke The NIV Application Commentary Series. Grand Rapids, Mich : Zondervan Academic. 2009.

In the inaugural sermon in Nazareth Jesus declared that, in his person and ministry, the messianic promise of Isa 61 was fulfilled, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (4:21). Similar emphasis is present in Jesus’ promise to the criminal, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (v. 43). “Truly” (Gk. amēn) occurs in Jesus’ teachings as an authoritative preface, a conviction of his right to speak on God’s behalf. “Paradise” occurs only thrice in the NT (v. 43; 2 Cor 12:4; Rev. 2:7) as the opposite of Gehenna, the place of condemnation and punishment. In Jewish literature, “paradise” is a transcendent place of blessedness, a celestial Garden of Eden (Gen 2:8; 13:10; Josephus, Ant. 1.37), reserved for the righteous after death (T. Levi 18:10-11; Ps. Sol. 14:3; 1 En. 17–19; 60–61).104 Some imagine “paradise” to signify a lower heavenly echelon or temporary eschatological state until the second coming. The term, however, appears to signify the full presence of God, the highest heaven. The criminal phrased his petition vaguely, “when you come,” but Jesus answers it specifically, “today you will be with me.”105 The emphatic placement of “today” at the head of the final clause assures the criminal — and Luke’s readers — that the promise of salvation is not merely a future possibility but an assured and present reality in Jesus.

Edwards, J. R. (2015). The Gospel According to Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.

Even as someone who doesn't deal with argument probabilities when it comes thing theological, even then giving you an atomistic/quark-ian chance that "semeron'' is a formality, not a time designation, this is not even close to a verse that can prove that physical baptism is necessary for justification or salvation. You still have to prove they entered limbo, not mere soul sleep anyways.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6691

File: 0acba8f6465ac77⋯.png (1.21 MB,1300x1300,1:1,tfwnofootfethishpriest_.png)

>>6687

>1

Take stats 101. We can drop this issue.

>2

I stand corrected and I'm glad to see it was not as bad as it was editorialized, but I'm still reading that a Greek Orthodox institution, clergy included, awarded abortionist Joe Biden a humantarian award.

>3

It is totally foreign. See: https://youtu.be/LTA8jbsm_XI

>4

Show me a black American EO church, that's what I was referring to. Then, contrast this to evangelical missionary work. Africa is not the west.

I'm glad to see a missionary church in Africa, you'll forgive me for not being aware of this 150 view video.

>Baptism is what the Christian Church practiced since the Apostles and a practice very well documented in the Bible

Agreed

>Of course, everyone is free to invent his own rules for salvation while having the illusion that his inventions are Biblical.

Snide and not an argument

I'm glad you bring up 1 Peter 3:21

<1 Peter 3:21 NASB — Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

You are decontextualizing to force your eisegesis. This clearly teaches that the action of washing in baptism does not play in salvation.

>Then you say Christ speaks empty words

Not an argument

At least concede the point that eastern churches aren't the only conservative Christian force in the west.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6704

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>6691

>It is totally foreign. See: https://youtu.be/LTA8jbsm_XI

Are you referring to the Church interior in this vid? BTW, this Church look is not exactly traditional, not that this is important. I've embedded another, shorter vid.

>Show me a black American EO church

I think I can't. And I hope the American Orthodox Churches are never going to be divided into white and black.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FneNd9UvC_g

> not the removal of dirt from the flesh

There is no "the" in Greek and immediately before that in Greek there is "the baptism" (which can be linked both to the text before and after it). This changes the meaning of the text significantly. Instead of

<Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

we have

<Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you. The baptism is not removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As a confirmation that this is the correct analysis of the Greek text, here is what St. Basil the Great (a native Greek speaker, 4th century) writes about this place:

"It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit. For baptism is not removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm)

>At least concede the point that eastern churches aren't the only conservative Christian force in the west.

I've never claimed this. I only "advertised" the Orthodox Church as one which can be trusted to remain conservative.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6705

>>6704

>there is "the baptism"

Sorry. There is not "the" here.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6706

>>6704

How does your restatement of that verse help prove your point? I know there is no definite article in koine greek.

I am saying that baptism of the spirit saves, only figured by baptism of water.

You are saying that baptism of water saves, despite this verse.

>I've never claimed this.

yes you did >>6595

<In the West the Orthodox Church has (become) refuge for conservative Christians

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6723

File: aa368cb43a97278⋯.png (563.06 KB,910x768,455:384,90343.png)

>>6706

>How does your restatement of that verse help prove your point?

>You are saying that baptism of water saves, despite this verse.

I only said that by refusing the necessity of the baptism of water you are changing what the Bible teaches us.

>I am saying that baptism of the spirit saves, only figured by baptism of water.

I didn't realize that you have this moment in your theology. The baptism with water is not the same as the baptism with Holy Spirit.

"Amen, amen, I tell you; unless one is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God!" (John 3:5)

For example in Acts 10:48 Peter baptizes with water people who have already received the Holy Spirit. Does Peter do something needless here?

The baptism in water doesn't represent the baptism with the Holy Spirit but rather the death of Christ. (Romans 6, Colossians 2:13) The water represents tomb which we enter (the traditional baptism is through dipping in water, not by pouring of water as if this is some kind of washing). After we link with Christ in his death, we are freed from the sins because "whoever has died has been freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him" (Rom. 6:7-8) Therefore, after this baptism with water (where we die for the sin) we receive the Holy Spirit (the baptism with Holy Spirit) in order to be able to live a new life for God in sanctity.

Now, let us look again at 1 Peter 3:12:

"The baptism is not removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

I agree with you that the action of washing in baptism does not play in salvation. The baptism is not washing of our flesh, it is linking with the death of Christ. In the baptism we die for the sin and make an appeal for a good conscience. Here the Greek word for "appeal" is very strong and means almost "demand" for good conscience given to us from God.

As for the martyrs, they don't need baptism because their own death in the name of Christ links them with the death of Christ.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6732

>>6706

>>I've never claimed this.

>yes you did >>6595

:)

There is a slight difference between "The Orthodox Church is refuge for conservative Christians" and "The Orthodox Church is the only conservative Christian force".

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6738

>>6732

Be my girlfriend. I love you

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6742

>>6732

Fair distinction. I concede.

>>6723

>For example in Acts 10:48 Peter baptizes with water people who have already received the Holy Spirit. Does Peter do something needless here?

No, water baptism remains an instruction even though it doesn't earn you salvation, just like evangelism for example.

>The baptism in water doesn't represent the baptism with the Holy Spirit…

I agree that the symbolism of the action of baptism is death and new life. Let me explain more clearly my position. Here's the timeline:

A man is an unregenerate sinner

He hears the gospel

He believes the gospel and is saved at that moment, baptized of the spirit

He (ideally immediately) goes where there is water and is baptized by a Christian

He can now join membership with a local church and continue the Christian life

Notice the distinction between baptism of the spirit and the water baptism.

Is it your claim that the two baptisms happensimultaneously? Or is there only one baptism?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6744

>>6742

Except the only Holy Spirit baptism that anon shows only applies to disciples who were with Jesus before and had been for some time.

Anything else, it just says they received the Spirit and then they are baptized. The question of Acts 2 also refutes all you say here, because the entire context deals with "how do I stop rebelling against God and what do I do to receive the gift the disciples have". Peter's answer indicates that water baptism is naturally part of this answer because that is where the appeal to God for/of a good conscience is made. This matches the end of Matthew where baptism is part of making disciples, not some formality later

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6746

>>6744

"Holy Spirit baptism" and "receiving the spirit" are the same event

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6748

>>6746

And water baptism is required. Because of the infrequent use of baptism to describe receving the Spirit safe for only one at the beginning, baptism when mentioned is thus associated with water

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6750

>>6689

And in the same BDAG,

① the ceremonious use of water for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship w. God, plunging, dipping, washing, water-rite, baptism

ⓑ of Christian rite β. φέρον ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν B 11:1; β. εἰς τὸν θάνατον Ro 6:4 (s. βαπτίζω 2b). ἓν β. Eph 4:5. The person baptized is at the same time buried w. Christ Col 2:12 v.l.; 1 Pt 3:21 (s. ἀντίτυπος). Compared to a soldier’s weapons IPol 6:2. τηρεῖν τὸ β. ἁγνὸν καὶ ἀμίαντον 2 Cl 6:9. Ritual directions D 7:1, 4.

To be baptized εἰς Χρ. is for Paul an involvement in Christ’s death and its implications for the believer εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν vs. 3b (s. Ltzm. ad loc.; HSchlier, EvTh ’38, 335–47; GWagner, D. relgeschichtliche Problem von Rö 6:1–11, ’62, tr. Pauline Bapt. and the Pagan Mysteries, by JSmith, ’67; RSchnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul ’64, tr. of D. Heilsgeschehen b. d. Taufe nach dem Ap. Paulus ’50).

Oops, according to the Greek and the BDAG, baptism by water is where one's buried with Christ is more than just a symbol. And this is what it says of apostolic baptism by water and its connection to John's baptism,

Ac 19:3 means, as the answer shows, in reference to what (baptism) were you baptized? i.e. what kind of baptism did you receive (as the context indicates, John’s baptism was designed to implement repentance as a necessary stage for the reception of Jesus; with the arrival of Jesus the next stage was the receipt of the Holy Spirit in connection with apostolic baptism in the name of Jesus, who was no longer the ‘coming one’, but the arrived ‘Lord’)?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6751

>>6750

here we go again boys

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6753

>>6751

>how to be a hypocrite 101

See how the Baptists ignore >>6689 when he does it but when I do, it's bad

This is just you being a hypocrite who hates reality

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6754

>>6753

Why are you so irritable? I'm just loathing the possibility that you flood another thread to death.

Is there really something wrong with me, or with you, if I can tell that you're back just by how you post?

Why are you immediately engaging in ad hominem?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6758

>>6754

Why dont you be consistent and CALL HIM OUT

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.6759

>>6758

Because he's not flooding the thread. You haven't yet either, so no harm done.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6761

>>6759

Oh it will be flooded alright.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6773

>>6742

>Notice the distinction between baptism of the spirit and the water baptism.

>Is it your claim that the two baptisms happen simultaneously? Or is there only one baptism?

As you say, there are two baptisms and, as you say, one follows another ideally immediately. But the natural order is different: first water baptism and then baptism of the spirit. First we die for the sin in the water baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and only then we receive the life force of the Holy Spirit in order to be able to live the new life in Christ; Acts 10:48 is exceptional. "You foolish one, even what you sow is not made alive unless it dies first." (1 Cor. 15:36)

Here are some places from Acts showing that the baptism of the spirit follows the water baptism.

In 2:38 Peter says: "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Therefore: 1. repentance, 2. water baptism, 3. receiving of the Spirit

In 19:1-7 we see the same order: 1. repentance (baptism of John), 2. water baptism, 3. receiving the Spirit through the laying of the hands of Paul.

In 8:12 the believers are baptized in water and then they need the Apostles in order to receive the Spirit. "Then, they (Peter and John) laid their hands on them, and they received Holy Spirit. Now, when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money" (8:17-18)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6777

>>6773

Stop IGNORING ME madam

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

615510 No.6800

>>6773

>First we die for the sin in the water baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and only then we receive the life force of the Holy Spirit in order to be able to live the new life in Christ;

How is that compatible with Ephesians 2? You are asserting that a work is necessary to be saved.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6814

>>6800

> You are asserting that a work is necessary to be saved.

Do you mean that the baptism is a work necessary to be saved? No, it is not. The work is something you do. The baptism is something God does. This is the timeline:

A man hears about the ancient faith (the gospel).

He becomes interested and opens himself to it: this is work.

He starts to investigate and to learn more: this is even more work.

He makes a final decision and reaches the time when he can be baptized: more works on the way.

He is baptized: no this isn't work because here God is acting, not the man. The visible ritual of dipping in water is not saving and by itself it is not baptism. Baptism is what God does during this ritual.

>How is that compatible with Ephesians 2?

Do you mean Ephesians 2:8-9? "By grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of you, of God is the gift, not of works, so that no one would boast."

Interpretation (based on Chrysostom, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230104.htm): We are saved by grace, that is by what God does, through faith, that is through what we do. But even what we do, the faith, is not ours but due to what God has done. The gift of salvation is of God, it is not caused by our doings (by our faith). Our faith saves only because God wills that it saves and not because it has in it the power to save.

One linguistic remark. The Greek word ergon, often translated as "work", means 'work, deed, act'. The English word work usually means activity we engage to earn livelihood, a specific task which is part of a larger activity, something we do in order to achieve or overcome something. The Greek word ergon is not that specific, it can be used exactly as the English word work, but it can be used also for any deed or action, for any doing. The work (ergon) is not necessarily a visible activity. It can be also a mental activity. For example when you hear for first time about Christ and you believe, the act of believing is something you do, it is work. You can't even start to believe without works.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6815

>>6814

STOP IGNORING ME

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6817

>>6814

YOU STUPID GIRL! ANSWER ME

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d41c1f No.6818

>>6814

>The visible ritual of dipping in water is not saving and by itself it is not baptism. Baptism is what God does during this ritual.

If there is a perfect correlation between the two then there is no meaningful distinction. They are distinct in name only and the properties of the thing signified are annexed to the sign.

But the real issue isn't "is it works", the real issue is why are we considered righteous by God? Are we properly holy, or only in His sight?

>The English word work usually means activity we engage to earn livelihood, a specific task which is part of a larger activity, something we do in order to achieve or overcome something.

You are aware this would fit right into Pauline usage, yes?

>For example when you hear for first time about Christ and you believe, the act of believing is something you do, it is work. You can't even start to believe without works.

In Pauline usage the word "work" normally means "an exertion of human will, a human act". Hence, faith would not be a work, because it is not as though we in our wisdom decided to go and believe. God created faith in us.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6820

>>6814

YOU THINK YOU CAN IGNORE YOUR BELOVED LIKE THAT

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6822

>>6818

>If there is a perfect correlation between the two then there is no meaningful distinction. They are distinct in name only and the properties of the thing signified are annexed to the sign.

To perform the ritual is our act. To perform the baptism during this act is an act of God. The two acts are distinct, one is by man, the other is by God and the properties of these two acts are very different, the first is removal of dirt from the flesh, in the other we are given good conscience. (1 Peter 3:21) There is always a clear distinction between an act by a man and an act by God. Here is example:

"But having put everyone out [of the room], Peter knelt down and began to pray. Turning towards the body, he said, “Tabitha, get up!” She opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up." (Acts 9:40)

The words "Tabitha, get up!" are an act of a man (of Peter). The resurrection of Tabitha during the words of Peter is an act of God. There is a correlation between the act of Peter and the act of God, the distinction, however, is clear.

>But the real issue is why are we considered righteous by God? Are we properly holy, or only in His sight?

I agree.

>In Pauline usage the word "work" normally means "an exertion of human will, a human act".

ok.

>It is not as though we in our wisdom decided to go and believe. God created faith in us.

There are two preconditions for our faith, both necessary:

1. acts of God

2. our free choice to accept the faith

1 is grace, 2 is work.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4e58a2 No.6823

>>6818

Good answer

>>6814

You haven't explained away the basic contradiction

<The work of baptism by water is necessary for salvation

<You are saved through faith, not of works

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6826

>>6823

>You haven't explained away the basic contradiction

I wasn't asked to. :)

<The work of baptism by water is necessary for salvation

The baptism is not work. Work is something you do, the baptism is something God does (>>6814).

Besides, Paul teaches that works can not justify us. He never teaches that no works are necessary for salvation. Without works even faith is impossible. How can you have faith if you don't learn what the faith is?

<You are saved through faith, not of works

We are saved by grace which operates through faith and faith is impossible without works. But neither works, nor faith save. God saves.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c0e4f5 No.6827

>>6826

>The baptism is not work. Work is something you do, the baptism is something God does

I agree because I distinguish between baptism of water and baptism of the spirit, but you've shared that you don't which leaves you in the contradiction.

>Paul teaches that works can not justify us. He never teaches that no works are necessary for salvation.

What? The passage we just read says exactly the opposite. He does teach that no works are necessary for salvation, "not of works".

>We are saved by grace which operates through faith and faith is impossible without works.

You're all mixed up

You are saved by grace which comes because of (through) faith. Grace is the means of salvation (by).

>But neither works, nor faith save. God saves.

God is the one who bestows the grace. He does it because of faith.

Faith saves. That is explicit in the text.

Do you happen to have a different mother tongue than English?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d41c1f No.6831

>>6822

>To perform the ritual is our act. To perform the baptism during this act is an act of God

Your distinction between the ritual and baptism is not scripturally supported.

>the properties of these two acts are very different, the first is removal of dirt from the flesh, in the other we are given good conscience.

Agreed. The problem is that when you say regeneration always occurs at baptism and (at least ordinarily) only at baptism these words lose their meaning. The substance of your words becomes identical to saying the sacrament itself saves.

>our free choice to accept the faith

Where is this man who is predisposed to submit to God? There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways and the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d41c1f No.6832

>>6822

Oh, and I forgot to ask

>I agree.

Then what is your answer to that question?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.6834

>>6827

>I agree because I distinguish between baptism of water and baptism of the spirit, but you've shared that you don't which leaves you in the contradiction

There is no contradiction.

A human act: Peter says "Tabitha, get up!"

God's act: God resurrects Tabitha

A human act: dip in water, removal of dirt from the flesh (1 Peter 3:21)

God's act: the sins are washed away (Acts 22:16) and forgiven (Acts 2:38), good conscience (1 Peter 3:21) is given to the one who has died for the sins (Romans 6)

A human act: the apostle lays hands on the baptized

God's act: the baptized is given the Holy Spirit so that he can live a new life

>The passage we just read says exactly the opposite. He does teach that no works are necessary for salvation, not of works.

"By grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of you, of God is the gift, not of works, so that no one would boast."

"Not of works" relates to "the gift". That is "The gift of salvation is of God, not of works". Nothing here implies that no works are necessary for salvation. Without works faith is impossible.

>You're all mixed up. You are saved by grace which comes because of (through) faith.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says "through faith", not "because of faith" and the difference is significant.

>Faith saves. That is explicit in the text.

We are saved by God (= by grace) through faith.

>>6831

>Your distinction between the ritual and baptism is not scripturally supported.

I make distinction between the human action during the baptism (the visible ritual, dipping in water and unessential for the salvation) and the God's action, remission of the sins (the essence of the baptism). For scriptural references see the beginning of this post.

>>6832

>Oh, and I forgot to ask

>>I agree.

>Then what is your answer to that question?

Oh, and I hoped you wouldn't ask. :)

Maybe tomorrow…

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6835

>>6834

ANSWER ME

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.6842

>>6834

You think this is funny? Enjoy dying alone

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

5d8fd8 No.6899

b ump

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.7036

Sorry for the delay. Holiday and some laziness…

>>6832

>But the real issue is why are we considered righteous by God? Are we properly holy, or only in His sight?

>what is your answer to that question?

Are we properly holy or only in God's sight?

But how can we, the sinners, be properly holy? Only you, God, are holy! (Rev. 15:4)

Then what is all this speech about holiness in the Bible, not just in one place but in many, not just by one biblical author, but by several? "Be perfect, just as your Father in the heaven is perfect" (Mat. 5:48) Isn't this a command by our Lord? Yes, it is. Then what do we do? How can we achieve the unachievable and be perfect like our Father in the heaven?

Oh, Lord, this looks like a contradiction to my mind! "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it!" (Ps. 138(139):6)

Different theories have been invented in order to get out of this difficulty. As far as I understand, the Roman Catholic theory comes down to this:

1. We don't have our own merits before God. Our merits are the grace we have been given by God.

2. There are different degrees of holiness depending on the merits one has accumulated. Those above level X are saints. Those above level Y are saved. Those above level Z are in the purgatory. Those below level Z are in the hell.

3. Our sins make us lose merits. For example an unconfessed mortal sin puts the sinner below level Y, in the purgatory. Lots of mortal sins put the sinner below level Z, in the hell.

4. For our works we deserve nothing. Christ, however, out of his charity freely has chosen to reward us for our good works with grace (= merits).

5. Christ is not the only one who can reward with merits. A saint who has accumulated lots of merits can decide, also out of charity, to give some of his merits to another person.

6. In the past there existed a developed "trade network" for merits (indulgences).

This "trading" theory distorted significantly the ethics of the Early Church. For example a rich man could build many churches and monasteries and by doing so he would accumulate lots of merits and be guaranteed heavens even if he was fornicator and doer of many other sins. Alternatively, one could inflict physical pain to himself by beating and hope that this would compensate for some of his sins.

The Reformation was a reaction also to this nuisance among others. The reformers denied the transfer of merits. And because at that time the ridiculous theory of the Roman Catholics about the prayers of saints was the only theory in existence in Western Europe, naturally the reformers denied also the prayers of the saints.

It is important to stress that the reformers were not people who desired to destroy the morals. On the contrary, the reformation was a reaction to the questionable morals in the Roman Catholic church. "Sola fide" for Luther and the other reformers was not "do whatever you want, you are saved".

Nevertheless, the question "why not" is very reasonable. If God gives salvation to some of us, the lesser sinners, why wouldn't he give salvation to the worst sinners too? Maybe the faith is all that you need? If you have this faith, then you are saved. Have faith and you can fornicate, you can kill people, you don't need any works.

The above conclusion is contrary to everything the Scripture teaches us. The question "why not" however is valid. For me as an Orthodox, one of the most repulsive aspects of the Western Christianity is the idea about the God's wrath against the sinners which has to be satisfied somehow. Some say that Christ suffered on the cross to satisfy the wrath of God, for others Christ stays before the sinner so God doesn't see the sins of the sinner. And many other absurdities like this.

Isn't God merciful? Doesn't he who is love love us? Isn't his love for us revealed by the fact that he has sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might live through him? (1 John 4:8-9) Why wouldn't he grant salvation to everyone, even to the worst sinner? Actually, why would he require even faith? Why wouldn't the good loving God grant salvation equally to everyone, believers and nonbelievers? And woe to the Calvinists who say God has predestined some people to eternal damnation and forged that God "desires all people to be saved". (1 Tim. 2:4)

Oops!

What do we have here? The Scripture teaches us that God is all-powerful and he desires all people to be saved but the Scripture also teaches that not all people will be saved. How come?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.7038

Let us return to the original question about the holiness. We are commanded holiness: "Be perfect, just as your Father in the heaven is perfect" (Mat. 5:48) This isn't the holiness of the Roman Catholics, which says if you collect X amount of merits, then you are saint. We are commanded absolute holiness, to be as our Father in the heaven, we are commanded infinity beyond any infinity. X merits in comparison to infinity is zero.

In the Orthodox Church we don't take the words of our Lord as figure of speech. If he commanded us to be perfect as our Father in the heaven, then we are bound to execute this command. But, oh God, no one is holy in comparison to you! And it can't be that you, oh God, have commanded us something impossible!

Yes, this is not impossible, because in order to be able to execute this infinite command, God has given to us eternity. At any given moment the holiness of a Christian is zero in comparison to the goal we are given. A saved Christian, however, has eternity to go toward the goal, infinitely surpassing any thinkable infinite level of holiness, reaching one greatness in some moment and infinitely greater greatness in the very next moment, infinitely moving at higher and higher speeds towards the absolute goal of being perfect as the Father.

This infinite process is what Apostle Paul had in mind when he wrote that "beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, we are all being transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, and this is from the Lord, the Spirit". (2 Cor. 3:18) That is, through the Holy Spirit we behold the glory of the Lord and we are being transformed (as a process, not as an one-time act) into the image of our Lord, moving from glory to glory.

Those who set out this infinite journey are the chosen race, the royal priesthood, the holy nation and people for God's own possession, who offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:9,5) Those who choose anything less than that will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.7039

Let us consider some examples how all this applies to our current life.

First, it is important to realize that anything we can achieve during this life is nothing, is zero in comparison to the infinite goal. Therefore, our merits are zero and unrelated to whether or not we will enter the Kingdom of God. There is no amount X of merits which will guarantee a sainthood, nor an amount Y which will guarantee salvation.

Second, because our mind is linked to our body (to the brain) we are limited by some properties of the physical world we dwell in: we think slowly at finite speed, at one moment we know something, at the next moment we have forgotten it, in one moment we decide we want one thing and in the next moment we become interested by something different. With respect to our salvation this limitation works for our advantage: it means that we can "change our mind". A serial killer, even one who has murdered thousands, can turn to God in an instant and say: "Lord, I am sorry! I will sin no more, help me to become a new man". And in an instant this serial killer starts the infinite journey leading towards the infinite holiness.

Is this serial killer a saint? No, he is nowhere near this. But he is moving in the right direction. And since the goal is infinitely away anyway, the direction is all that matters. If this serial killer perseveres in his decision until his death, he will enter the Kingdom of God. Like the robber on the cross who said "Lord, remember me when you come in your Kingdom".

Of course, this works also in the opposite direction. Imagine a righteous man who has more merits than any other man on Earth. And in some moment he says "this is enough". He doesn't actually sin. He just stops his movement toward the infinite goal. And that's it. He has become satisfied with his merits and his merits are zero and unworthy for the Kingdom of God. "Therefore, be careful how you hear. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him." (Luke 8:18)

When we die, our soul is freed from the limitations of our body and we will no longer "change our mind". If we don't reject some passion while alive, this passion can remain with us for eternity, torturing us. That's why some Orthodox theologians say (of course, figuratively) that not the sinner is in the hell but the hell is in the sinner. The sinner is not saved but this isn't because God doesn't want the sinner to be saved. He is not saved because to save him would mean to change forcefully the free choice he has made and to change his free choice would mean to destroy him as man and to turn him into a robot.

That's why now, while we are still alive, is the right time to say "Lord, I am sorry! I will sin no more, help me to become a new man!". No matter how many times we sin we should turn to God and say honestly "I will sin no more". Now is the time to reject the works of the darkness and to put on the armament of the light. Now is the time to join the only Church where you will be given such armament together with instruction how to use it wisely (I mean the other churches don't even pretend to give such instruction).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9e1046 No.7133

>>7036

Why dont you love me?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

989193 No.7166

>>7036

>>7038

>>7039

I question your rejection of the concept of grace "merits" based on works in Orthodoxy, or of a non-existence of a hierarchy between Saints, laity, the damned/temporally damned, etc. If there was no hierarchy whatsoever, Saints with a capital "S" would not be considered worthy of praying to, based on supposedly being confirmed as being in Heaven due to miracles or testimonies of the church. (Also on a sidenote, purgatory is for unconfessed venial sins only. Unconfessed mortal sins are a one-way ticket to Hell.)

I question the former, because there is a history in the Orthodox church, and even somewhat in the early church of the concept of the aerial toll houses, or if not in this fashion, at least a concept of encountering aerial demons as one is escorted to heaven by angels. Such demons making some false and some true accusations based on unconfessed sins. If one does not have a work they have done to compensate for said unconfessed sin, the angels will just let the person be dragged to temporal Hell (not the Lake of Fire of the Last Judgement) to be tormented, though they can be prayed out of said temporal Hell.

One particularly famous account of this phenomenon:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/theodora.aspx

Even seems to imply a kind of "trade network" for merits:

>"At this time holy Basil himself appeared unexpectedly and said to the holy angels. 'Holy angels! This soul did great service to ease my old age, and therefore I prayed for her to God, and God has given her to me.' Having said this, he took something out that appeared like a little bag of gold and gave it to the angels with the words: 'Here is the treasure of prayers before the Lord for this soul! As you pass through the torments of the air and the evil spirits begin to torment her, pay her debts with this.'"

>"Then Basil, the man who had pleased God, came again. He bore many vessels of pure oil and precious myrrh, and all these, one after the other, he poured on me. I was filled with spiritual fragrance and felt that I had changed and become very light. Once more the holy man said to the angels: 'When, holy angels, you will have done for this soul all that is needed, lead her to the dwelling that the Lord has prepared for me, and let her remain there.' Then he once more became invisible. The holy angels took me up, and we went eastward through the air."

>""As we were ascending, the holy angels talked among themselves and said words to this effect: 'Truly does this soul have great help from Basil, a man who has pleased God. If it had not been for his prayers, she would have suffered a great deal in those stations of the air.'"

There is also even further clear statements of "merits" adding up:

>"Those who believe in the Holy Trinity and take as frequently as possible the Holy Communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ our Saviour's Body and Blood—such people can rise to heaven directly, with no hindrances, and the holy angels defend them, and the holy saints of God pray for their salvation, since they have lived righteously.

And this is not a unique phenomenon. Seraphim Rose's book " The Soul After Death" recounts many such tales in the church's history of of encounters with the aerial demons on the way to heaven. Included is one particular testimony that monastics, priests, etc. witnessed a Saint get a direct, no interruptions, VIP direct pass to heaven, with virtually no harassment by aerial demons, outside of some sarcastic praise and jeering from the sidelines in a final desperate attempt to get him to sin through pride.

Then of course, there is the "40 day prayer ritual" of some branches of Orthodoxy, particularly the Russian branch. Combined with the aerial demons, and being able to be prayed out of temporal Hell, or helped along the path by the extra merits of Saints, seems to imply a Purgatory: Orthodox Edition, so to speak. Overall, I see Orthodoxy and Catholicism as two sides of the same coin, or like milk chocolate and dark chocolate: having differences, but ultimately being of the same core substance.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.7167

>>7166

The Bible teaches works are required for salvation. It's only a matter of what works. God enabled or man's own. The former is what God demands once he initially justifies. The latter is rags.

The ironic thing is, the Bible is actually more works oriented than the Toll Houses. Because in that system, someone else can still procure mercy you dont deserve on your behalf which can simply be seen as God's providential grace working through those saints and enabling efficious intercession. In the Bible, there's NONE of that. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus shows it is unlikely for one in hades or hell, to come out. There is nowhere is someone's requests able to undamn someone and while there may be hints of a temporary purgative state, as Paul says in Corinthians about how a man having no works, can be saved by the fire, there is no one to undamn you. There is no escaping the many statements on the necessity of good works for final justification as Galatians even says at the end, James 2 and 1 Thessalonians. The Biblical definition of faith, demands an active faith. And so you are false, just like the cowardice of the Toll Houses.

Except at least the Toll Houses is derived from the logic of veneration of saints and praying for the dead which are ancient practices, just taken to a questionable extent. For your views, that's straight up unbiblical

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.7168

>>7167

The only sense in which works are required for salvation is the work of Christ. Man's good works after salvation do not make him retroactively saved, that's circular reasoning.

As we've said a million times, you're saved by faith. The saved man shows this salvation through his works.

Once again, Ephesians 2:8-9.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.7172

>>7168

Wrong. Because justification and salvation in the Bible has a present and future tense. When James addresses his audience that faith without works is dead, it isnt a warning to outsiders or those who arent Saved. It is to believers who acted in a manner that is unfitting of faith. This is why judgement as a warning is used in Revelations as well. Your view opposes the bible because it results in a fully realized eschatology. That's more whack than Toll Houses

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.7174

>>7172

>It is to believers who acted in a manner that is unfitting of faith.

Not a contradiction with my position

>Your view opposes the bible because it results in a fully realized eschatology

No it doesn't

I have given an answer that reconciles James and Ephesians. You are asserting an argument from a misreading of James and trying to ignore what's explicit in Ephesians.

You are saved through faith, not of works.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.7175

>>7174

When believers are called to have genuine faith which without works cannot save and is just like a dead corpse, that is definitely not works as merely being demonstrative, because it demands a kind of faith that just works. This is why it contradicts your position. The only way out, is to admit true believers are just automatons that the Holy Spirit is dangling around.

Using Ephesians doesnt work because for centuries, the Catholics happily accepted unmerited predestination without the implication of sola fide. Even frigging Aquinas believes this. So citing Ephesians wont work. Especially now that the possibility of unmeritted Grace and works from Grace being compatible is there. And it better accounts for James and John

Your view demands a fully realized eschatology because works are just done after one is Saved. As many Prots say, works are just for show before men and for bonus rewards, not contribution to Final Vindication

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.7176

>>7172

Continuing my last point, since works come after one is Saved, a state which many actually think cannot be lost and can be absolutely known, that means you dont need to wait for future judgement and vindication. It doesnt matter as the verdict said initially doesnt have to be confirmed or vindicated later. It's one and done!

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.7178

>>7175

>Using Ephesians doesn't work

We can not argue because we don't have the common ground of the authority of scripture. I'm making an argument based on what the Bible says, and you're engaging in conjecture.

<Ephesians 2:8-9 NASB — For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

There's no way around it. By your own admission, you are pitted against the Bible.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.7179

>>7178

>Grace and active reliance on God is against the bible

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.7180

>>7179

>Redefining the opponent's critique in place of an argument

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.7182

>>7180

>works is merely demonstrative

You said this so clearly. It isnt rocket science

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6eda39 No.7218

File: baeb98dfb69bc1f⋯.jpg (315.11 KB,1332x888,3:2,baeb98dfb69bc1f7c54ff6158b….jpg)

>>6588

>petey is the ROCK spoken of at legnth in prophecy

>the very same ROCK that can literally only be Christ himself

<what is a cornerstone?

>a ROCK

<who was the rock/cornerstone rejected by the builders?

>obviously pete, the ever-failure who ever established one singular church

<clearly the builders rejected ol mr. pebble and not God made flesh

<please also ignore all of the "alleged" saints who youll immediately throw under the bus for the heresy of saying God is the ROCK of the church, its very foundation

Damn you guys are pathetic.

>>6577

Interesting take, didnt read it.

<please beg your pure mommy goddess to convert me

<im sure your quadrune feminist goddess will change my heart

>>6584

Amen.

>>6595

Christ is kgb?

>>6611

<dont recall reading that in scripture

<is this the kgb equivalent of the pedo-papists saying Jesus built the church in italy himself?

>>6629

Brother, we do have a jew problem. I suspect though, as the boomers finally kick off we wont in the future however…

>>6704

So… Baptism is a necessary action for salvation?

<strange your theology calls Christ so blatantly a liar

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fce54d No.7242

>>7218

>the very same ROCK that can literally only be Christ himself

Eisegesis. The crux of this argument is that in Matthew 16:18, Jesus points to Peter and says "thou art [little rock] and *Jesus points to Himself* on *this* rock I will build my Church. That's risible because right afterwards He gives Peter the Keys.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

80acd9 No.7243

>>7242

No, the rock is the confession of Christ as Lord that Peter had just given

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fce54d No.7244

File: d3df750c3e6dcf1⋯.jpg (142.68 KB,601x480,601:480,OneChurchOneChair.jpg)

>>7243

The claim that Christ will build the Church on Peter’s ‘confession of faith’ does not exclude the fact that it will also be built upon the person of Peter and his God given authority.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.7248

File: 6587e372fb801d0⋯.jpg (148.14 KB,720x896,45:56,IMG_20190515_161750.jpg)

>>7244

Yes it does, whatever the rock is in that chapter is what the church is built upon. We have confirmation that the rock is not Peter because the Bible elsewhere calls Christ the foundation (Acts 4, 1 Corinthians 3). Cyprian was mistaken.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

59586b No.7249

>>7248

Good exegesis, friend

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3991e0 No.7251

>>7248

Remember that the original words of Jesus were in Amaraic. Although it is true that Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ have different spelling, this is only because because rock in Greek is feminine, and Saint Peter is male, so Petros would be a neologism to refer to Peter as rock but masculine.

The Aramaic word for Rock is Kepha, and here there can be no disctiction between Peter and rock, because they are genderless. The actual word Jesus described Peter as was that, Kepha, and we know this because Peter is referred as Cephas many times in the bible. So what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.7254

>>7251

Agreed and remembered. Doesn't change the fact that Christ is the foundation of the Church, not Peter. Peter was an instrumental figure, and an authoritative one, but not in the way the Roman church claims.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.7255

>>7251

Wait a minute you're changing the meaning of scripture by speculating what the words might have been in English, I'm not going to let you get away with that.

The Greek document is the one that was infallibly penned by inspiration of God. That is where we draw our doctrine from.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.7260

>>7166

Since not everyone in this board knows the concept about the aerial toll houses and your post has suggested (incorrectly) that this is something similar to the purgatory, an explanation of the Orthodox teaching is in order. Intentionally, I'm gonna use a quote by a Western author, Pope Gregory the Great:

"The evil spirits seek in the dying soul what they have accomplished there; they remind it of the faults they have inspired it in order to draw it into their torment. But why are we speaking here only of sinful souls, while the evil spirits also go to meet the dying elect ones, endeavoring to find, if they can, something that would belong to them? Now there has never been more than one man who can say boldly before his Passion: "I will not talk much with you, for here comes the prince of this world, and he has nothing in me." (John 14:30). Indeed, the prince of this world, seeing that Christ was a mortal man, imagined that he could find in him something that belonged to him. […] So we must take care to meditate every day in tears with what fury and under what terrifying aspect the prince of this world will come, the day of our death, to claim what in us belongs to him, since he dared to address even to our God when he died in his flesh, to seek in him something [which belonged to him], without being able to find anything."

The above quote contains the essence of the concept about the aerial demons. To try to understand this concept from a single tale (such as the tale of Theodora you quoted) is unwise, especially if one is not at home with such kind of literature and don't know "how to distinguish between the spiritual realities described there and the incidental details which may sometimes be expressed in symbolic or imaginative language." "Of course, there are no visible “houses” or “booths” in the air where “taxes” are collected". (both citations are from Fr. Seraphim Rose)

Some of the tales about after-death experiences tell us about something like measurement of the good and the bad deeds. This is so because our bad and good deeds are presentation of the inclinations inside our hearths, of what we love, what we hate, what we desire, of our remorse. "Out of the good treasure of his heart, a good person brings out what is good, but out of the evil treasure of his heart, one who is evil brings out what is evil." (Luke 6:45) "Indeed, it is from the heart that evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false witness, and blasphemies come forth. (Mat. 15:19)

While our souls are still in our bodies we are able to change the inclinations inside our hearths. For example about the alms our Lord says that "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12:34) In other words, the alms we give install good inclinations in our hearths.

After we die our inclinations change no more. Some of the inclinations of a Christian are in accordance with God's good will but others are bad. So when a Christian dies he has both kinds of inclinations. The soul is torn between them. In the tales about the aerial toll houses this is presented as an examination of various good and bad deeds while the soul is tormented by fear.

Misconception 1: The torment of the soul by fear is analogous to the torment in the purgatory

Refutation: The torment of the soul by fear is not caused by God, the cleansing fire in the purgatory is. The torment by fear is not punishment, the cleansing fire is. The torment by fear is fearful but short test what is going to win – the good or the bad, the torment by cleansing fire can be prolonged.

Through our prayers the dead get some comfort, some of the dead may even be freed from the hell. This, however, does not happen because God is "persuaded" by the prayers to forgive the sinner. God forgives everyone who can be forgiven. The prayers help because through them the spiritual state of the soul can improve.

Misconception 2: Some souls are in the hell only temporary. This is analogous to the temporary torment by fire in the purgatory

Refutation: Contrary to the popular opinion, the Scripture does not tell us that God tortures the souls in the hell by fire or whatever.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.7261

>>7166

>Overall, I see Orthodoxy and Catholicism as two sides of the same coin.

No, they are not.

Hell

Catholics: God tortures the souls there.

Orthodox: God does not torture the souls there.

Salvation by torture

Catholics: Some of those who do not have enough merits to enter the heaven will go to the purgatory where they will be tortured by a cleansing fire. Even while alive one can torture himself (self-flagellation) in order "to pay" for some of his sins.

Orthodox: God admits in the heaven all souls whose disposition (will, desires, etc.) permits them to be in the heaven. Torture can not and does not give ticket for heaven.

Heaven

Catholics: There can be circumstances when God wants one thing, a saint wants different thing but God listens to the prayers of the saint because of that saint's merits.

Orthodox: The Kingdom of God is a kingdom of perfect accordance and unity of men and God. There is no need for a saint to "persuade" God in anything because what God wants the saint wants and what the saint wants God wants. God listens to the prayers of the saints not because of their merits but because the prayers of the saints are prayers of the Holy Spirit and the prayers that the Spirit makes for the saints are always in accordance with God.

"The Spirit helps our weaknesses, because we do not know how to pray as we should. But the Spirit himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. He who searches the hearts knows the way of thinking of the Spirit, because the prayers that the Spirit makes for the saints are always in accordance with God." (Rom. 8:26-27)

Prayers for the dead

Catholics: The prayers for a dead man are substitute for the lacking good deeds of that man. If the deceased man does not have enough merits by good deeds to secure his entrance in the heaven, he can use the merits given to him as charity by the prayers for him.

Orthodox: God wants the good of the dead and we should want what God wants. Our prayers for the dead (for those who can be helped) are expression of the alignment of our will with the will of God. Through our prayers the dead can get some comfort, some of the dead may even be freed from the hell.

Alms

Catholics: The alms give us merits through which we can obtain admission in the heaven.

Orthodox: God admits in the heaven all souls whose disposition (will, desires, etc.) permits them to be in the heaven. Alms are useful not because they give us merits. They are useful because through the alms we obtain the disposition which we need in order to be in the heaven.

"Sell your possessions and give to those in need. […] For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12:33-34)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

539ac9 No.7278

>>7248

That doesnt matter because in your worldview, what Jesus said to Peter must be false. This is evidenced by the fact that all the fathers like Cyprian, deny your view of salvation, worship and so on. All cannot be sola fideists in your view, because some affirm that almsgiving can merit atonement for sin, final judgement and whenever baptism is mentioned, it is always regenerative.

Even the fathers closest to sola fide say the same. Like Marius Victorinus who is explicit on the need of baptism and attach an entire Platonic framework to his soteriology. Hilary says all believers will be judged by their works and baptismal regeneration. Ambrioster does too.

But Jesus said not even Hades will prevail over his church but it seems it does

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

462112 No.7279

>>7278

In my view, the "shall not prevail" promise is eschatological. No falsity from Jesus there.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3991e0 No.7280

>>7255

>and we know this because Peter is referred as Cephas many times in the bible

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a1246a No.7281

>>7280

I'm not denying Peter's name was cephas, I'm saying that you can't wave away the different Greek terms in Mat 16:18 between rock and rock because that Greek document is the inspired one.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

539ac9 No.7287

>>7279

It does when for thousands of years, everyone believed wrongly. No prophet. No one came out with your baptist dogma at all. When Jesus said that, he means that what he is going to establish, the community of Christ followers, isnt going to fail. It will endure. That's the eschatological meaning of it. No matter what, the people of God will endure because God says and promises so.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a1246a No.7290

>>7287

I agree with your reading in application of the "shall not prevail" passage, but I reject your conclusion on church history as conjecture.

There are countless cases for the Protestant soteriological position in early church history, but they're really only ancillary to exegesis. I know for a fact what the Bible says about salvation and I do not care how many members of your Roman cult have been preaching a different gospel for how many years, it does not change a thing.

Hell did not prevail against the true church because the gospel is still going out to the nations.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.7300

>>7290

There is if one revises sola fide to accept a final judgement according to works, add in some Platonic stuff, synergism and baptismal regeneration. Otherwise, no, it is impossible to make the case for it. In fact given the fact that you and many Prots dont even consider baptism as salvific, that already means all of the church fathers deny your position by default!

And here's the thing, if Hell didnt prevail, then where are your ancient baptist cult? It cannot be Irenaeus because he says people will be judged according to works and baptismal regeneration.

It cannot be 1Clement because he says believers are not justified of anything they do but he still says believers will be judged, obedience and faithfulness is what faith requires and love between believers covering sin.

Even the Bible denies you because of basic texts like James and how Paul describes faith for us.

At best, the Fathers are just Synergist Lutherans with some sort of double justification going on

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ca5f7a No.7309

File: d940a7d03fad8dd⋯.png (4.05 MB,3631x2000,3631:2000,fire_metaphor.png)

>>7300

Like I said already, the only relevant discussion is that of scripture interpretation. Don't come at me with "even the Bible" as if exegesis is the afterthought to your "we wuz" tier appeal to history fallacy.

If you really want to get into it, show me the alleged disagreement between James and Paul.

Premise one from Paul in Ephesians:

>You are saved by grace through faith, not of works

Compatible with sola fide? Yes, definitively.

Compatible with works salvation? No, definitively.

Premise two from James:

>Faith without works is dead

Compatible with works salvation? Yes, if you take this to mean that the works by necessity come before the faith.

Compatible with sola fide? Yes, understanding it to mean that the absence of works can demonstrate dead faith, which is still causally nonreliant on works.

Here's the avenues available for you to argue:

-Your soteriology doesn't constitute works salvation

-Works salvation is biblical and I'm misinterpreting Ephesians 2 (challenge premise 1)

-Law of non-contradiction doesn't matter and two competing truths can be simultaneously truthful (Muslim argument)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

989193 No.7321

File: ad7b000b3402b5b⋯.png (744.69 KB,718x800,359:400,kisspng-gold-medal-bronze-….png)

File: 9d922d659e2cb89⋯.png (755.61 KB,720x800,9:10,Gymnastics-stock-medals-MS….png)

File: 01ce5ae2e2bb539⋯.jpg (31.66 KB,634x357,634:357,2E9ED8BC00000578-3326505-i….jpg)

>>7167

>The Bible is more works oriented than the Toll Houses.

You get a medal…

>>7260

>>7261

>Going through an afterlife system in which you get a Particular Judgement based on unconfessed sins and/or how much works you've done to cover for unconfessed sins, and the possibility of being prayed out of Pariticular Judgement Hell, has no parallels to Purgatory whatsoever.

And you get a medal….

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

00117c No.7352

>>7321

Can i get a golden medal also?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.7369

>>7309

>Ephesians

Which refers to Grace and the fact that outside God you cannot be saved. So one needs to trust God and be dependent on him. That is Paul's concept of faith as shown in the beginning of 1Thesselonians 1:3. There he makes clear the active nature of faith by pairing it with works which flow from that. Paul always praises an action there whenever he speaks of faith. Like verse 7 of chapter 1, chapter 2 verse 12-13, chapter 3, where faith is more than just a mere passive thing and include faithfulness!, chapter 5 verses 8-9

Anyone who looks at that, can see James and Paul DONT contradict each other.

And no, works that comes after faith isnt going to help you. Because I already MADE CLEAR what works are important, the one enabled by Grace, not men. So saying that is making strawman. Given what James said, those works enabled by Grace actually count for salvation somehow at Final Judgement.

So good job with the strawman. Keep it up, Baptist!

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ca5f7a No.7404

>>7369

By grace, through faith, not of works.

It doesn't say "of works enabled by grace", it says not of works.

I'm trying my best to represent your position the way you're articulating it but you're pretty incoherent.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.7408

>>7404

It is you who are incoherent, claiming works as merely demonstrative when there is clearly more to it in James 2. It cannot accomodate for all the numerous ocassions where Paul speaks of works that flow from faith. 1 thessalonians is an example of this. Faith in God enables action but the action isnt some mere demonstrative thing. It's causal, i.e the faith causes the works which only make sense if faith is actually active. If faith is active, it's works salvation in your view because faith must work. Faith must assert effort, exercise will eventhough it is Divinely enabled and actively relying on the Divine.

If your view is true, the saved are but automatons simply moved by God the puppeteer

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fdefd4 No.7409

>>7408

I agree with everything you're saying about faith causing the works, works flowing from faith.

No, my view is not determinist.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.7410

>>7409

Denying the role of works, entails determinism because it makes the active nature of faith redundant. So you have to be consistent or admit your version of sola fide is stupid

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fdefd4 No.7417

>>7410

What? No, it doesn't. I'm giving you the standard articulation of sola fide.

You are saved by grace, through faith, not of works. You are the one who chooses faith, it is not determined for you.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.7419

>>7417

Except that isnt what Calvin said. Even Luther follows Calvin in his determinism which later Lutherans toned down. So ironically, the earliest form of Sola Fide presupposes, hard determinism. Only later is the condition of faith which one can fall away from is emphasised in Lutheran tradition and perhaps some Arminians who see what is wrong with Calvinist double predestination.

But unfortunately for those Lutherans and Arminians, the fact that free will is retained as the Catholic answer actually supposes in spite of predestination, they cannot account for consistency on the issue of works. Because if faith is free will and free will exists, then the very work which one can decide not to perform, is also one which includes the agency of the believer who actually have to will to perform, divinely enabled, the case is the same. This entails work factors into salvation in some way since those are practically faith in action from diposition which is actively exercised which as James tell us, is required. Paul says the same in Galatians and even describes faith in Romans as tested faith.

Thus your presentation is stupid. Because to be consistent, it must say the believers are basically automatons, not actively doing from their faith and reliance on God. Otherwise it is synergism, not monergism. As two wills are active

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fdefd4 No.7421

>>7419

We're done. You have proven to be incapable of making an exegetical argument. I've been here ready to listen and debate that argument but I couldn't pry it out of you and I only have so much patience.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.7422

>>7421

The fact that you are unable to display any remembrance of James or Thessalonians shows that you are the one who is incapable of making an exegetical argument.

This is proven by how you deliberately left out the other part of Ephesians that literally confirms what had been saying, that faith is not mere belief, but is in fact active reliance on God, as Paul immediately says predestined to good works and throughout the letter implores his audience to act because of what God has done.

The worse thing is that you also create a strawman of the views of Papists who actually believe in unmerited predestination, so Ephesians is not incompatible with that, as it is by Divine action by grace that one is enabled to be saved and do the works predestined. And the fact that we have constant references to the future aspect of salvation, that also means that what is done now, will be considered in this future vindication which James references.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.8001

bump for the gospel

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

17ad95 No.8067

>>6605

Mary venerating will cast you to HELL

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

17e1e3 No.8071

>>8067

No, there are entirely appropriate ways to venerate Mary just like any other saint. The problem with Roman Catholics (and some lutherans) is that they go a step further and their veneration constitutes worship, which is idolatry.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9fb512 No.8196

>>8071

>and some Lutherans

Which branch of Lutherans do this?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

35bddb No.8200

>>8071

>there are entirely appropriate ways to venerate Mary just like any other saint

No there are not.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

211954 No.8204

>>8200

How are you defining veneration

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

35bddb No.8211

File: 08146bb1f644c10⋯.jpg (70.89 KB,595x446,595:446,idolatry mary as strange g….jpg)

>>8204

I'd say pic related qualifies

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.8212

>>8211

No, that's idolatry like the filename says. Read the post again.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.8215

>>8212

>idolatry

No, it is not. "Idol" comes from Greek εἴδωλον and means "shape, figure, image, image of the mind, idea, fancy"

Therefore, idol is any image or representation of the Godhead you make, whether material or only in your mind.

And the Bible agrees with this definition:

"Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven." (Deut. 4:15-19)

In other words, don't make images of the Godhead because the Godhead is unlike anything in the world and unlike our imagination can create. Any material or intellectual image of God tells us what God is not, not what God is.

Depending on your beliefs, you can say that what is on this image is good or bad, but regardless of whether it is good or bad, it is not idolatry because this statue doesn't pretend to be an image of God.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

328248 No.8216

>>8215

The treatment of Mary amounts to elevating her to divinity in the minds of the worshippers

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b5a40f No.8296

File: b25c1a6283eb075⋯.jpg (32.39 KB,915x576,305:192,b25c1a6283eb075ae09b02507a….jpg)

>>7352

You get a star! :D

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e088a4 No.8303

>>8215

When Baal worshippers created idols and bowed down to them they weren't thinking of the Trinitarian God, it was an idol of one of their false gods. So it is with idolatry. And that clashes with your definition.

For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

– Psalm 96:5

Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:

– Isaiah 2:8

Also falling down at the feet of said objects is the definition of worship. As we can see in Daniel chapter 3 where it was commanded that all nations "fall down and worship" the image which Nebuchadnezzar set up. Also in Revelation 22 John fell down at the feet of the angel, and the angel immediately told him not to do this but "worship God."

So then those who are falling down at the feet of their hand-made images are committing idolatry by worshipping them. In direct contradiction to everything the Old Testament and New Testament says not to do.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.8388

>>8303

Any image of the Godhead (or of a god) is an image of false god. So I agree with the first half of your post.

As for your identification of "falling down" with "worship" I must disagree. "Falling down" was not something reserved only to God, in the ancient word this was a common gesture for showing respect before your parent, before the king, etc. Ap. Peter said "fear God, honor the emperor" (1 Peter 2:17) and this honoring included falling down before the pagan emperor "for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom. 13:1)

>As we can see in Daniel chapter 3 where it was commanded that all nations "fall down and worship" the image which Nebuchadnezzar set up.

The expression "fall down and worship" shows that "falling down" is not the same as "worshiping". The problem here is that Nebuchadnezzar wanted the nations to worship his image as image of god. Falling down before Nebuchadnezzar in a way which did not create the impression of worshiping was ok. For example, Queen Esther fell down at the feet of King Xerxes and pleaded with him. (Esther 8:3)

>Also in Revelation 22 John fell down at the feet of the angel, and the angel immediately told him not to do this but "worship God."

In Revelation 19:10 Ap. John fell down at the feet of the Angel and the Angel immediately told him not to do this but "worship God". Ap. John, however, didn't listen to the Angel and in Revelation 22:8 he does the same for second time. And you are suggesting that this makes Ap. John an idolator. But no, he was not. At that time he "was in the Spirit" (Rev. 1:10,4:2) and unable to sin. He fell before the Angel because the Spirit told him that showing humbleness before the servant of God was the right thing to do. And the Angel told him not to do this because the Angel, too, just as anyone else in the heaven, was humble. In fact, a similar thing happened with our Lord Jesus Christ who, too, was "gentle and lowly in heart":

Behold, a man came to him and asked, “Good teacher, what good thing shall I do in order to have eternal life?”. Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matthew 19:16-17)

We are not inferring from these words that our Lord is not God, aren't we?

>So then those who are falling down at the feet of their hand-made images are committing idolatry by worshiping them.

Those who are worshiping images (of any kind) are committing idolatry.

Those who make images of god (whether they fall down or not) are committing idolatry.

But just falling does not make you automatically idolater. Just as our handshaking, falling down is a common gesture of respect; something we have forgotten in our modernized haughty society.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4212d9 No.8395

>>8388

>As for your identification of "falling down" with "worship" I must disagree.

Scripture itself makes this identification

https://biblehub.com/greek/prosekyne_san_4352.htm

>this honoring included falling down before the pagan emperor

When directed toward a secular figure it is not a religious action. They fell down before Caesar as their earthly lord, but to fall down to something in a religious context is to recognize it as one's spiritual lord which, when given to something other than God, is called idolatry.

>And you are suggesting that this makes Ap. John an idolator

He fell down before the angel in ignorance thinking it was Christ, but it identified this as worship. Either the angel was wrong, which is impossible, or John was worshipping him.

>He fell before the Angel because the Spirit told him that showing humbleness before the servant of God was the right thing to do. And the Angel told him not to do this because the Angel, too, just as anyone else in the heaven, was humble

If the Spirit told John to fall down then the angel sinned by countermanding His will.

>But just falling does not make you automatically idolater

It does in a religious context.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

60b770 No.8407

File: 5331eebbe0c01bc⋯.jpg (206.73 KB,716x683,716:683,forgive.jpg)

>>8395

>Scripture itself makes this identification

I don't follow you. The Greek word προσκυνέω (proskyneo) can be translated both as worship and as falling down. But this doesn't mean that "worship" and "falling down" are the same thing, especially considering that you admit that it is possible to fall down in non-religious context while worshiping is always a religious act.

As far as I can tell, you claim that falling down in a religious context is always an idolatry. On the other hand, I claim that:

1. in some cases falling down in religious context is wrong and idolatry;

2. in other cases falling down in religious context is wrong but not idolatry;

3. in yet other cases falling down in religious context is neither wrong, nor idolatry.

>He fell down before the angel in ignorance thinking it was Christ

The context of Rev. 19:10 makes clear that Ap. John knew that this was an angel.

>but it identified this as worship

This only demonstrates that the Greek word proskyneo does not always mean 'worship' (which is something that any Greek dictionary will tell). "καὶ ἔπεσα ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ" is better translated as "and I fell before his feet to prostrate before him" rather than "to worship him". Worshiping an angel is an absurd.

>If the Spirit told John to fall down then the angel sinned by countermanding His will

Both Ap. John and the angel did what the Spirit told them to do. None of them sinned.

Anyway, all this can be interesting but it concerns point 3. of the above list while my initial point in >>8215 was about 2.:

>Depending on your beliefs, you can say that what is on this image is good or bad, but regardless of whether it is good or bad, it is not idolatry because this statue doesn't pretend to be an image of God.

According to the dictionary the Greek word εἴδωλον (idolon) means "shape, figure, image, image of the mind, idea, fancy" and the Bible in Deut. 4:15-19 agrees that idol is any image or representation of the Godhead. I fail to see how falling down (in religious context) before something which you do not consider god or an image of god is idolatry (regardless of whether this falling down is good or bad). BTW, the people on the picture fall down before each other and ask forgiveness from each other. This clearly happens in religious context but it is not idolatry. In the same way in some cultures husband and wife can ask forgiveness from each other or parent and child, etc.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb5aac No.8429

>>8303

This is false and shows ignorance of Ancient Near East culture. It is practically known that cultures at the time believe the deity to be present in its symbols and images

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

678c7a No.10611

bump to keep reminding :^)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

844282 No.10617

>>6577

>guy in gigantic funny hat who wants your shekels says you absolutely NEED to give him shekels or else you go to hell

How is this different than any number of personality cults?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

35bddb No.10622

>>8407

Your whole argument is an ipse dixit. "It isn't worship because we say it isn't worship". Why should I care about your ipse dixit?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

97106e No.10642

Threadly reminder,

Those who are born-again children of god, baptized in the Holy Ghost, CAN be reasonably sure they can understand the Bible without vain tradition.

We have THE author of the Bible dwelling in us, who guides us to all truth.

>What about the gnostic gospels??? How do you know they're not the Word of God without our vain tradition???

I've read them. They're retarded. They contradict the four Holy Gospels (and the rest of the Bible) so blatantly, that to not be able to tell their forgery shows you aren't indwelt by the Holy Ghost.

>I know who you are, you come from the Immortal Realm of Barbelo

-Judas, to Jesus, The Gospel of Judas

See, retarded.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

46d03f No.10720

>>10642

The bible clearly says we are all "indwelt by the Holy Ghost". Some people just don't listen to it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

73fd4a No.10732

>>7166

>>7167

>>7172

>TollHouse Memes again

when will this end?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]