/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

Last generation's greatest teacher on this topic

based

>>6413

>>6414

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

How can one thread be so based?

>>6577

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

>>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.

>>6414

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

>>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

>>6595

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

More like refuge for unbelieving LARPers

>>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)

>>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?

>>6593

Don't feed the troll

>>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.

>>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…

>>6605

shut up, nerd

>>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.

>>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)

>>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?

>>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.

>>6662

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

>>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

>>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.

>>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.

>>6704

>there is "the baptism"

Sorry. There is not "the" here.

>>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

>>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".

>>6732

Be my girlfriend. I love you

>>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?

>>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

>>6744

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

>>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

>>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’)?

>>6750

here we go again boys

>>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

>>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?

>>6754

Why dont you be consistent and CALL HIM OUT

>>6758

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

>>6759

Oh it will be flooded alright.

>>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)

>>6773

Stop IGNORING ME madam

>>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.

>>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.

>>6814

STOP IGNORING ME

>>6814

YOU STUPID GIRL! ANSWER ME

>>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.

>>6814

YOU THINK YOU CAN IGNORE YOUR BELOVED LIKE THAT

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>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?

>>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.

>>6822

Oh, and I forgot to ask

>I agree.

Then what is your answer to that question?

>>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…

>>6834

ANSWER ME

>>6834

You think this is funny? Enjoy dying alone

b ump

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?

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.

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).

>>7036

Why dont you love me?

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>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

>>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!

>>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.

>>7178

>Grace and active reliance on God is against the bible

>>7179

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

>>7180

>works is merely demonstrative

You said this so clearly. It isnt rocket science

>>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.

>>7242

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

>>7248

Good exegesis, friend

>>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."

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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)

>>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

>>7278

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

>>7255

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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>7321

Can i get a golden medal also?

>>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!

>>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.

>>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

>>7408

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

No, my view is not determinist.

>>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

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>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.

bump for the gospel

>>6605

Mary venerating will cast you to HELL

>>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.

>>8071

>and some Lutherans

Which branch of Lutherans do this?

>>8071

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

No there are not.

>>8200

How are you defining veneration

>>8211

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

>>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.

>>8215

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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

bump to keep reminding :^)

>>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?

>>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?

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.

>>10642

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

>>7166

>>7167

>>7172

>TollHouse Memes again

when will this end?