/lit/ - Literature

File: 11 KB, 259x194, images (17).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:23:26 2020 No.15192261 [Reply] [Original]

Sola fide? Retroactively refuted by Saint Paul.
>Romans 2:6-8
><6> For he will render to every man according to his works: <7> to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; <8> but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:25:52 2020 No.15192287 >interjew kvetching Guess what, kike? Nobody cares. Go back to Israel and stay there, jew

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:26:13 2020 No.15192291 File: 1.26 MB, 1845x1080, protestant vs catholic.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15192261 Catholics are glorified boomer atheists

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:36:01 2020 No.15192390

>>15192261
Taking a quote out of context doesn't disprove the larger narrative of the New Testament, which is that Jesus's death was a sacrifice which was needed because humanity falls short of the glory of God. We are tainted with sin and our works are never enough to justify us in the eyes of God, that's why we need to be cleansed by the grace of God which we accept through faith. A works-based salvation is incongruous with Jesus's mission.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:39:48 2020 No.15192429 File: 1.32 MB, 2160x2350, 1587542003924.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >he still believes in bugman dialectics of faith vs works I have faith AND works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:40:04 2020 No.15192432 >>15192390 Dumbass it’s called sola fide not solo opus. Every Christian who believes works are important to salvation does not disregard faith. The opposite isn’t true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:40:37 2020 No.15192439 >>15192291 That describes protestardism even better though?

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:43:27 2020 No.15192471

>>15192432
Works are not important to salvation because OUR WORKS ARE ALWAYS INSUFFICIENT to please God. The Holy Spirit changes your heart when you believe in Christ and you are drawn to righteousness, but works are not even a factor in salvation. In heaven there will be a hierarchy; the righteous men will rule over the unrighteous, but those unrighteous will still be admitted into heaven. There is plenty of biblical backing for this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:44:29 2020 No.15192483 >>15192291 Protestantism... >No miracles >No transubstantiation >No exorcisms >Symbolic sacraments I think the atheists are others

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:46:06 2020 No.15192494 File: 269 KB, 1280x1280, tetragramaton22.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15192287 Imagine not worshipping YHWH ahahaha what God is mightier than The Mightiest?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:48:26 2020 No.15192513 >>15192390 >Taking a quote out of context If the quote disproves your silly belief of course I going to cite it. If every single quote refutes the protestant narrative your "whole picture" interpretation it's going to be wrong as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:54:48 2020 No.15192561 >>15192261 I think most adherents of sola fide would say that actually-existent faith implies good works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:56:28 2020 No.15192576 >>15192513 There are many quotes I could show you which say the exact opposite. We get our theology from a holistic exegesis of the text, not just random snippets we find here and there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 12:59:00 2020 No.15192602 >Muh version of Rabbi Yeshua's religion is correct when will the LARPing stop?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 13:05:30 2020 No.15192654 >>15192561 But that quote saying that your works count, not that faith would imply good works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 13:06:41 2020 No.15192663 >>15192576 SCRIPTURE doesn't contradict itself. Why do Protestants believe this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 13:11:02 2020 No.15192705 >>15192471 Works being insufficient on their own doesn’t lead to them being unimportant in the matter of salvation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 14:25:38 2020 No.15193277 >>15192483 Based

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 14:39:54 2020 No.15193399 File: 103 KB, 720x900, 1587371299524.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15192663 dunno. prots are usually braindead retards. did you know they're missing like 13 books out of the bible? its cus they're too stupid to read the whole thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 15:07:07 2020 No.15193613 >>15192261 how does this meme work when luther BTFO the catholic church forever, the schism still hasn't been overcome 500 years later and all attempts to have luther killed failed?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 15:17:58 2020 No.15193707 >>15192483 >Catholic education Protestants believe in all of those things (maybe except for the details of transubstantiation)

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 15:52:46 2020 No.15193924 >>15193707 The presence during eucharist depends on denomination

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 16:23:57 2020 No.15194174 >>15193707 >Pr*testant education I was listing the things protestants believe retard

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 16:30:04 2020 No.15194237 > Taking Paul over Jesus

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 16:41:14 2020 No.15194342 >>15194237 Jesus never said Sola Fide you fucking count. And I'm not the one who believes Sola Scriptura lmao.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 16:47:54 2020 No.15194404 Sola fide is ridiculous. But not as ridiculous as sola scriptura.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 17:48:19 2020 No.15194860 >>15192429 That's literally the point. Prots have an unfounded, anti-sola scriptura, dialectic of faith and works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 17:52:05 2020 No.15194889 File: 219 KB, 1026x548, catholicism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15192261

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 17:52:42 2020 No.15194895 >>15192261 What constitutes works?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 18:12:42 2020 No.15195018 If OP's interpretation is correct then every single person is going to hell. Isa 64.6 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 18:14:06 2020 No.15195029

>>15194860
literally a cope from our subverted sects. the whole point of "Protestantism" was to steep yourself in the word of God and come to meaningful conclusions. instead we have fat jerry going to his methodist churchhouse every other sunday with his second "wife" (he's just shacking up with her), learning some feel good pap bs designed to lure in bored post-wall wives looking for painless absolution, then jetting home in a car bought on a loan to stare vacantly at a 50inch tv for seven hours before passing out drunk. then he can wake up in his stupor, treat his family, neighbors, coworkers like shit all day, engage in every vice imaginable without the slightest contrition whatsoever and say to himself "heh, it's all faith im worthy me me me"

i hate what has happened to our churches and church going people.

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 18:44:30 2020 No.15195294

>>15195029
the average botard can't interpret Scripture accurately. this is why you need to authority of the succession of st peter to. if people could read the bible on their own to any degree of accuracy you would only have one protestant denomination.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 18:47:38 2020 No.15195317 >>15195294 i take it you support Vatican II then

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 18:48:38 2020 No.15195319

>>15195294
i agree up to the point where it requires the authority of the roman catholic church specifically, which seems to have always been a political organization and takes part in subtly subverting the faith as surely as the thousand nonsense sects of protestantism. authority itself is subverted and used as a tool to lead people away from Christ. in my head i imagine a model of authority that is based on small communities weeding out their own wise men instead of huge competing monoliths who get their sermons from dubious religious schools who get their curriculum from God only knows what places.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 19:35:21 2020 No.15195621 >>15195018 That's why confessions exist

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 19:53:06 2020 No.15195726 >>15195621 You've missed the point. All of your righteous acts, all of your good works, are filthy rags to the Lord. According to OP's interpretation everyone will receive wrath and fury.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 19:59:20 2020 No.15195768 File: 124 KB, 1200x630, 129059-wxnslzjlcg-1571040046.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15195726 That's why confessions (and purgatory) exist you fucking nigger.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 20:05:48 2020 No.15195805 >>15195768 Why are you so uncharitable? Is it because you are just a LARPer?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 20:21:17 2020 No.15195946 >>15195805 Because it's the second time I give you the answer, this is like talking with a wall.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 20:22:38 2020 No.15195955 >>15195768 You won't find the doctrine of purgatory in the Bible. The apostles didn't teach such a doctrine.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 20:25:04 2020 No.15195973 >>15195946 That doesn't mean you should call people bad words. If you are Christian then follow his teachings.

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 20:41:48 2020 No.15196120

>>15195955
The apostles didn't teach the Trinity. >>15195973
No, that's not how it works. Maybe he is already a fucking nigger, since he needs two responses to understand. Maybe I am being charitable calling him what he already is. Maybe I should call him something worse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 20:44:50 2020 No.15196147 >>15196120 >The apostles didn't teach the Trinity. 1 John 5:7 >For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. OH NO HAHAHAHA

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 20:47:10 2020 No.15196166 >>15196147 And? That's not the Trinity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 20:49:28 2020 No.15196177 File: 68 KB, 473x809, 1587707167782.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15196166 >And? That's not the Trinity.

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 20:58:02 2020 No.15196230

>>15196177
Where does it say that's the Trinity lmao. Nowhere. The first mentions of something similar to a Trinity was recorded centuries after the death of Christ. The doctrinal definition of the Trinity was set in Nicea 328 years after Christ coming. That passage can be whatever thing you nigger.

Also, why do you care about "what the Apostles taught" so much? The Apostles never taught Sola fide, and you believe that. The Apostles never taught Sola Scriptura because they didn't have one, but you do. The Apostles venerated Mary and you don't. The Apostles were members of the Church and you are clearly a heretic. You would know that if you weren't a dumb nigger.

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 21:02:07 2020 No.15196251

>>15196230
>The Apostles never taught Sola fide
Ephesians 2
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
> The Apostles never taught Sola Scriptura because they didn't have one
You are saying the apostles never had Scripture?
Peter literally called Paul's writings Scripture.
2 Peter 3:16
16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
>The Apostles venerated Mary
Chapter? Verse?
>The Apostles were members of the Church
Which church? The one at Ephesus, Corinth, Thesallonica, etc.?

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 21:18:36 2020 No.15196360

>>15196251
The OP posted a passage where it says clearly that works are necessary for salvation. You are so fucking stupid to think that the Scripture is contradicting itself. everything except accepting that your interpretation of Ephesians is wrong.

The apostles didn't have the written Gospels lmao. everything was part of the Tradition.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The assumption of Mary was part of the oral Tradition (their oral Tradition). They literally saw Mary ascending to heavens. Saint John saw her in the book of Revelations as well.

Which Church? Ahaha. THE CHURCH, you mongrel, you absolute ignorant piece of shit. ALL OF THEM WERE ONE.

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 21:19:00 2020 No.15196364

>>15195955
Purgatory is based off scripture. It is a cleansing, purifying state before you enter into heaven where nothing unclean may enter. Doesn't it make logical sense that not everyone who believes in Christ has lived the type of holy life that would prepare them for immediate entrance into heaven?
Here is the catechism on purgatory:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2N.HTM
It references the scriptures at the bottom.

>>15196251
>>The Apostles venerated Mary
>Chapter? Verse?
There was a church, The Church, from the time Jesus died until the books of the bible were formalized. Their apostolic traditions were passed down.
Her first canonical apparition was in 40AD to an apostle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_the_Pillar

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 21:31:17 2020 No.15196454

>>15196360
>The OP posted a passage where it says clearly that works are necessary for salvation. You are so fucking stupid to think that the Scripture is contradicting itself. everything except accepting that your interpretation of Ephesians is wrong.
Firstly you don't need to be so hostile.
Secondly I didn't say Scripture was contradicting. You simply have the wrong interpretation. Your INTERPRETATION of the passage you quoted contradicts Ephesians. You are presupposing works salvation and taking that passage out of the context of the whole of Scripture. This is what happens when you don't rightly divide the word of truth as the apostle says in his 2nd letter to Timothy chapter 2.
>Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

>2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
And when your oral traditions contradict the written ones? What then?

>Which Church? Ahaha. THE CHURCH, you mongrel, you absolute ignorant piece of shit. ALL OF THEM WERE ONE.
They were? Which church was that? Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, the church at Ephesus, the church at Thessalonica, the church at Rome, the church at Galatia, etc. Same with John in Revelation.

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 21:43:33 2020 No.15196535

>>15192261
Ok OP.

You stated.
>Sola fide? Retroactively refuted by Saint Paul.
>>Romans 2:6-8
>><6> For he will render to every man according to his works: <7> to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; <8> but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Paul clearly states that we are saved by faith and not by works.
>For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

So either
1. your interpretation is wrong
or
2. the Bible is contradicting

Which is it? Are you wrong or is the bible?

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 22:06:08 2020 No.15196706

>>15196535
>>15196454
Your interpretation of Ephesians is wrong. Faith is INDISPENSABLE for salvation. Without Faith (which is God's gift) there is no salvation no matter how good works have you done. But WORKS are also necessary as stated in Romans. BOTH WORKS AND FAITH.

Oh wow, it fits perfectly with the interpretation that both orthodox and Catholics, the legitimate claimers of the Apostolic succession have! How coincidental!

>>15196454
>Oral tradition contradicting Scriptura
Never happened and never will. How is that possible you nigger, it the Scriptura was derived from the Tradition?
>the Church ninininini
THE CHURCH. Paul talks one thousand times about ONE CHURCH.
>If I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
>And he is the head of the body, the Church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
>So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Here's the Nicene Creed
>We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.

Niggggggggggger.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 22:09:36 2020 No.15196735 >>15196706 >THE CHURCH. Paul talks one thousand times about ONE CHURCH. Which Church is that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 22:21:12 2020 No.15196819 File: 225 KB, 703x534, 1584929581816.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15192261 Where did you get that verse OP? I hope your priest gave you a bible license.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 22:24:31 2020 No.15196844 >>15196735 Right now the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 22:26:03 2020 No.15196855 >>15196844 That is four churches.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 22:31:38 2020 No.15196897 >>15196855 Whose sacraments are valid because they were originally founded by Christ. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 22:34:04 2020 No.15196913 >>15196897 >they were originally founded by Christ. Proof?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 22:41:11 2020 No.15196943 >>15196913 >And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 22:43:12 2020 No.15196958 >>15196943 That isn't what I asked. I asked for proof that your bishops are actually descended from Peter. Records from the last 2000 years. Without that it is all just hearsay.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 22:48:43 2020 No.15196981 File: 780 KB, 2000x2000, 4bf245a0d0b7662e989290590ffc660cd51e07cf21275008ae40ed038258fa8f.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15192483 >Catholics Where the fuck is any of that shit needed, faggot?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 22:49:07 2020 No.15196985 File: 75 KB, 800x862, c62.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15196958 >Chronological list of Bishops of Rome >Nº1 Saint Peter (30 to 67 AD) >Pope (redirected from Bishop of Rome)

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 22:51:40 2020 No.15196998 >>15196981 >who needs the Eucharist >Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.

Anonymous Sat Apr 25 22:54:26 2020 No.15197010

>>15196985
A list of names isn't a source. You need actual documents. Things that you don't have because they don't exist. Keep larping as "apostolic" because it doesn't matter.

The truth is even if you DID have proof it wouldn't mean a thing because apostolic succession is worthless without Apostolicity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 25 23:26:15 2020 No.15197169 >>15197010 A document? Like signed? That's not how it works. It's well known that Saint Peter was bishop of Rome, he was maryred there and his relics are there. Wtf apostolicity is supposed to mean besides "protestant cope".

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 01:21:37 2020 No.15197804
File: 1.09 MB, 245x210, corporal instruction for pseuds (peace shall not be upon them until they learn good English).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15192261

It's PRE-EMPTIVELY, you idiot! When you say "retroactively" you sound like a damn fool!

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 01:45:31 2020 No.15197925 File: 389 KB, 680x660, 1587508404715.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15196230 >was recorded >the apostles can't teach by word >our earliest record means the true earliest record OH NO NO NO

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 02:30:16 2020 No.15198159 >>15194889 This. Evangelicalism is nothing more than McChristianity. It's demand-driven consumerist christianity, or the modern vendors in the market.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 02:38:07 2020 No.15198206

>>15192261
I'm convinced that protestants are simply not real Christians. Even Luther would be disgusted by the modern "New Age" christianity that has predominated in the US ( after all how different is your standard American protestant from Lutherans). These rotestants believe in a non-personal "higer-force" God and Jesus Christ as a heroic spiritual capser-like ghost buddy. Which is why they are so unconfortable with the cruxifix, under the veil of avoiding idolatry, they despise this since it shows the Truth of what the essence of Christian Salvation truly is.

I don't discount the faith of all protestants, however protestantism and it's endless despoiling and deviation into heresy and further from the truth, prove it's flawed intention.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 02:51:30 2020 No.15198258

>>15197925
Even if they did (a significant number of them had to teach something similar) that's not a proof of the Trinity. There are a lot of particular heresies regarding the relationship of the Three Divine persons, and all of that was defined in Nicea. Not everything is as simple as it seems in your partially developed brain, kid.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 02:58:00 2020 No.15198278

>>15198159
>>15198206

And these comments are void because you don't have a place of authenticity to begin from, so what remains is the locus of cultural superiority, which is entirely on the protestant side (failed Mexican narcostate, catholic cultural fatalism, correct protestant work ethic and imperative for accumulation, etc).

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 03:09:13 2020 No.15198317

>>15198278
It seems that you have yourself proven the core tennants of what protestantism is today, a solely cultural/nationalist artifact, not a christian religion.
Instead of worshiping God, they worship the earthly cultural and monetary benefits it brings, seen in phenomenon like the prosperity gospel. Blessing from God is equated in purely capitalistic terms and virtue with "imperative for accumulation." Never mind the martyrs or the meek or, of course, the poor carpenter crucified to a cross.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 03:10:55 2020 No.15198325 >>15198278 >Muh money! Yeah, I think protestantism is Judaism 2.0

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 04:02:54 2020 No.15198564 >>15198317 >poor carpenter crucified to a cross You meant to write: dead kike on a stick. Go kiss more nigger feet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 06:51:01 2020 No.15199362 >>15194895 >still no answer The absolute state...

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 06:53:49 2020 No.15199373 >>15195294 >authority of the succession of st peter Whence this authority and their status of "successor"?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 07:02:50 2020 No.15199405 >>15196998 What makes you think the Catholic ritual is the thing that Jesus speaks of?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 07:09:52 2020 No.15199447 >>15196147 That's widely accepted to be a later addition. In fact, no church father who was trying to argue for the trinity ever used such a direct, clear quote, so it was obviously not present by their time.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 07:26:29 2020 No.15199532

>>15192261
>be luther
>start rumour that catholicism teaches that you have to earn salvation
>accuse catholics of teaching this and claims that only protestants teach faith alone
>catholics believe luther's fake rumour and start defending it
>christendom collapses into religious war
>tens of thousands of people die
>christianity is still split to this day

Was Luther the most diabolical man that ever lived?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 07:31:48 2020 No.15199558 >>15199532 >be luther >invite the church to a logical debate >they spazz out and start a war instead

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 07:58:45 2020 No.15199690 >>15194889 CS Lewis, Kierkegaard, Milton, John Bunyan and the individuals who wrote the bible. What's your point ?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 08:14:03 2020 No.15199768 >>15199690 >CS Lewis >believed Christ did not have a human soul OH NO NO NO NO

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 08:31:16 2020 No.15199855 File: 224 KB, 358x262, 1558645862186.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15199447 >That's widely accepted to be a later addition

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 08:43:52 2020 No.15199909 Can gook moot just ban soijaks already? every thread becomes worse when they are posted.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 08:49:19 2020 No.15199948 >>15192261 Doth God exact day-labour?

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 11:50:22 2020 No.15201223
File: 233 KB, 1800x1199, 1557749872651.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15192261
>mfw people begin quoting single verses out of context to reinforce the faith that they adopted for ideological reasons rather than relational reasons (with Christ)
This is a terrible board.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 11:54:51 2020 No.15201271

>>15192471
>>15192432
>>15192390
You guys are entirely wrong.
>>15192429
Mostly right, depending on the reasoning.
Faith is what is required for salvation, and works are just evidence of that salvation. Works did not die on the Cross, but they show the internal shift towards a more sanctified lifestyle. James 2:14-26 shows that the core issue is when someone assumes they can do nothing, and be faithful. Even the demons have faith in the Lord, and they shudder. It's not that you have to prove your faith, or work to earn salvation, but that, out of love for the Lord, you'd desire to serve Him on Earth, and that involves works.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 12:02:58 2020 No.15201354

>>15195029
>>15194860
I'm a Protestant and I agree that much of the Church has been subverted. Many Protestants are boomers or millennials that take salvation by faith to such an extent that they ignore that Paul rejected such a retarded understanding of salvation in Romans 6:1-4. I'd say that they can't be functionally trusted to, without teaching or guidance, develop a whole theology independently. Most people would do eisegesis and form a belief system based on a mixture of Scripture and their existing beliefs.
I've seen churches do terrible things, and it breaks my heart because I don't know how many have been led astray because of these actions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 12:27:44 2020 No.15201607 >>15199405 Because yours is symbolic and the Catholic one is literal

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 12:28:48 2020 No.15201615 >>15199362 The question is so stupid that I am not going to answer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 12:31:04 2020 No.15201636 >>15196998 >thinking John 6 pertains to the Lord's Supper Papist "exegesis" everyone

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 12:36:46 2020 No.15201690 >>15199558 >invite the church to a logical debate >The Church starts a Council in Trento >Luther is invited >Refuses to go >Protestantism is refuted in the council and Luther receives the excommunication

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 12:43:56 2020 No.15201757 >>15201636 based

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 12:47:15 2020 No.15201788

>>15201636
>53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
>he later introduces a sacrament where he literally turns bread into his body and wine into his blood
>somehow it's not related
>Catholics btfo!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 12:49:06 2020 No.15201808 >>15201223 >quoting verses that condemn your stupid heresies is not rational Ok boomer

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 13:31:58 2020 No.15202171

>>15201788
i honestly don't think Christ literally fed people his body and blood. he has always symbolically been "The Word", and throughout the Bible the idea is presented of eating or consuming "The Word" like Ezekial. Christ was also known to speak in heavy metaphors and the like. I really believe that he meant you must consume the truth (that we now know is his sacrifice and resurrection) through him in order to live forever through him. do you have anything that would change my mind? i cannot in my wildest imagination understand how people came to the idea of trans-substantiation or whatever it's called without the co-mingling of alchemist/gnostic beliefs. the sacred literal ritual where you feast on human flesh strikes me as a subversive element of your belief system that cheapens Christ actions on the cross by digging him back up for personal consumption to absolve yourself in a ritualistic way that was symbolically condemned by Christ already by proclaiming the end of animal sacrifice with his perfect, singular sacrifice.

does anyone have a simply put explanation for this for a layman?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 13:37:45 2020 No.15202227 >>15192261 Imagine strawmaning sola fide this hard. Faith implies works but works do not imply faith. Therefore works alone are not salvific, only faith is. Read James.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 13:41:38 2020 No.15202261 File: 66 KB, 916x910, ehsppoooooget.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15192261 >church can only be done in a big pretty building with robed men who are allowed to let me have communion. oh nonononono

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 13:46:36 2020 No.15202291
File: 113 KB, 920x1290, 801goya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15202171
>But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
You're not judging the body rightly because you say that it's just a metaphor. It can be a metaphor in your denomination because only the members of the Church (with apostolic succession) can turn the bread on flesh of Christ. In the book of Exodus God the Father asks the Israelites to sacrifice a lamb every Lent and eat it in remembrance of the alliance they made. Christ is the sacrificial lamb, the Agnus dei that dies for the sins of the world (in fact he died in the cross without having his knees broken, just like the sacrificial lamb) and the eating of the body of the lamb (Christ) is the new sign of alliance. If you're thinking about symbols, you're denying either that the eating of the lamb was explicitly the sign of the pact between the Hebrews and the Lord, or that Jesus is not meant to be the exact contract of the covenant just as the lamb was.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 13:47:38 2020 No.15202298 >>15202227 >Faith implies works Not Sola Fide. Learn what Sola Fide means and then come back.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 13:57:33 2020 No.15202368 >>15201690 as if they wouldn't burn him alive, just like Hus lol...

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 13:58:35 2020 No.15202377 >>15202261 /thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 14:01:10 2020 No.15202404 >>15201615 Compelling...

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 14:02:23 2020 No.15202420

>>15202261
That's right, Church doesn't mean whoever yelling the name of Christ and performing rituals in his name. Church is the authority Jesus founded on Earth and that Paul followed.
> Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” 14 Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?”

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 14:06:29 2020 No.15202453 >>15201607 Literal rituals? I suppose it's congruent with drinking Mary's breast milk in a fever dream and other such Catholic proclivities.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 14:08:09 2020 No.15202466

>>15202420
Oh no hahahaha
Mark 9:38-41
38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 14:09:38 2020 No.15202482 >>15202291 >or that Jesus is not meant to be the exact contract of the covenant just as the lamb was. Not him but this much is obvious regardless. Atonement theories of any kind are nonsense.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 14:11:16 2020 No.15202497

>>15202291
>It can be a metaphor in your denomination because only the members of the Church (with apostolic succession) can turn the bread on flesh of Christ
this is where im lost, this entire tradition, information etc is extra biblical. Jesus didn't say any of this explicitly, and in that passage of corinthians paul makes no mention of the literal consumption of Christ. Christ was supposed to complete and fullfill the old rituals once and for all, but we're supposed to unbury him to eat him every communion? why even sacrifice at all? it's just a more gruesome form of what the hebrews had been doing. i understand your waryness of metaphors, but they are something to contend with- in many passages "eating" really means "understanding" for traditions sake.

the connection with the lamb is compelling, i just can't make the jump to a higher society of priests with extrabiblical spells and authority feeding people their savior. Christ is above a lamb, we don't need the old rituals any more. we need faith, love, hope and the works that should grow from that sincere faith. honestly this belief system confuses me.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 14:23:13 2020 No.15202614
File: 373 KB, 842x936, Screen Shot 2020-04-26 at 2.18.12 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is Saint Gemma. . I really wish all you pathetic trad-cath larpers would LEAVE until you learn at least the basic tenets of the faith.

This is a page every Catholic should read:

http://www.stsimonoftrent.com/

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 14:29:21 2020 No.15202651 >>15202497 Serious question. Where do Protestants think the Bible comes from? Do they believe it was just dropped from Heaven? The bible was assembled by the Early Church with the intention of going with tradition.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 14:39:15 2020 No.15202728 >>15201808 >eisegesis is ok

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 14:39:28 2020 No.15202730 >>15202651 This implies that it came to be by very human reason that Catholics condemn.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 14:43:58 2020 No.15202764 >>15192261 The Catholic Church is a cultural institution. 99% of it isn't what Christ said.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 15:52:12 2020 No.15203243 >>15199855 Explain the fact that none of the Church fathers who were eagerly grasping at straws to defend the Trinity never used that one, simple, clear quote to defend it. Imbecile.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 15:54:26 2020 No.15203276
File: 95 KB, 680x550, 1587417768775.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15203243
>Explain the fact that none of the Church fathers who were eagerly grasping at straws to defend the Trinity never used that one, simple, clear quote to defend it. Imbecile.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 15:56:41 2020 No.15203299

>>15203276
I respect the Catholic Church very much, I really ain't the one you should be using these memes with. Enjoy not being able to defend your own faith. I hope you one day grow beyond your larping and maybe become a good, learned Catholic, or at least stop larping. It's embarassing for you and the people around you.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 16:02:58 2020 No.15203350
File: 49 KB, 640x884, 1587392902648.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15203299
>I respect the Catholic Church very much, I really ain't the one you should be using these memes with. Enjoy not being able to defend your own faith. I hope you one day grow beyond your larping and maybe become a good, learned Catholic, or at least stop larping. It's embarassing for you and the people around you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 16:42:48 2020 No.15203649 >>15202466 >a miracle in my name Protestants can't do miracles.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 16:45:11 2020 No.15203665 >>15202497 >Christ is above a lamb Christ is the lamb of God >Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 16:52:52 2020 No.15203735 >>15203665 He is called many things throughout the Gospels, explicitly or implicitly, none of which are too relevant.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:10:48 2020 No.15203868 >>15203735 >none of which are too relevant this is your brain on protestantism

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:16:36 2020 No.15203909 File: 168 KB, 500x522, 1572041360907.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15203735 >none of which are too relevant

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:18:19 2020 No.15203922 >>15203868 Taking the things ascribed to him by John as true and the things ascribed to him by his detractors as false merely because they are said by John and his detractors, respectively, is terminally primitive.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:21:25 2020 No.15203945 >>15203922 >ascribed to him by John as true Yes, because John was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:22:46 2020 No.15203957

>>15202466
Anyways this passage shows that protestants aren't the true successors of the apostles. But again, protestants can't perform miracles nor expulse demons (they deny such things), so they are not the ones whom the scriptures talk about. Those people expulsing demons might be laics (followers of Jesus but not the authoritative representatives of Jesus).

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:25:48 2020 No.15203990 >>15203945 What makes you think so?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:27:43 2020 No.15204003 >>15203990 Not him, but the gospels clearly confirm his prophethood.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:27:58 2020 No.15204004 >>15203957 Cope

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:33:06 2020 No.15204053 >>15204004 >Cope Not an argument. The scripture talks about miracles. Where are your miracles? Protestants don't have any in 500 years of existence. They even deny that there are miracles so their followers aren't aware of the fraud of Protestantism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:36:07 2020 No.15204071 >>15204053 >They even deny that there are miracles Lmao Is that true? Literally how do they cope with this?

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:38:28 2020 No.15204089

>>15203665
But he's not literally a lamb, he's an offering akin to a lamb, and i sincerely don't believe we're supposed to perform a spell and eat him through time and space. I understand what it means for him to be a sacrifice, but the jump to the absolute literal and rituals to yank Christ back into flesh as atonement doesn't seem scriptural to me, it seems gnostic. he spared us, it's done. we don't need to relive the Crucifixion weekly to atone, we need to appeal to Christ and change our ways to atone. grounding it in tradition is much better than the wishywashy nature of many protestants, but i think you cheapen the personal relationship, meditation on salvation and everything else ive gotten of value from Christ by turning him into the exact same style of sacrifice as the old law and achieving it through alchemistic ritual.

yes, he is a sacrificial lamb, but he is glorified more than a literal lamb that would have been offered as a sin offering. he's a perfect sacrifice in part because he's so far above a standard sacrifice, and i think, like much else he did, his personal sacrifice is a break with tradition.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:41:19 2020 No.15204109 >>15204089 and it eats me up because now his sacrifice suddenly isn't enough. his perfect action is only accessible through this particular vanguarded act. i don't buy it, it seems to embody a lot of antichristian principals.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:44:42 2020 No.15204142
File: 84 KB, 552x599, agnusdei.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15204089
He's not literally a lamb, he is human and God, but he is the new sacrificial lamb, the Agnus Dei, and he was present at the book of Revelations like a literal lamb. If he said that we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood because he is the new lamb that replaces the lamb of the Israelites, I don't understand why that would be metaphoric
>Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:45:27 2020 No.15204156

@15204089
Nobody performs a "spell", that's the domain of evil spirits. Christ sacrifices himself in the liturgy and gifts us his life-giving body and blood.

>grounding it in tradition is much better than the wishywashy nature of many protestants
Okay, then just follow the tradition then and stop thinking that modern bugmen or you have it all figured out owing to your superior spirituality and intelligence? You do not understand the Eucharistic sacrifice better than the the church farhers. You either simply accept this or keep being a cringe bugman and perish like everyone who rejects Christ's teaching.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:45:48 2020 No.15204159 >>15204109 >i don't buy it, Christ himself said "do this" but I don't buy it!!!

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:51:38 2020 No.15204223

>>15202651
but not the tradition of the old testament, that's hammered over and over in acts. there is a new tradition established, but how it got into people's heads that we need to employ metaphysical wizardry to eat Christ in a literal sense because you ate certain sin offerings before and because of the passages regarding the last supper confuses the hell out of me. the only real support i can find of it is "Jesus is being completely literal here", when in these same passages he speaks of how he has had to communicate in imagery and fables and metaphors for the sake of our understanding.

>>15204142
>>15204159
basically what i just said. i think this will continue like this conversation always does. we go in circles around whether or not he was being literal. i don't think he was, for the reasons in my various posts, and i think that puts us at an irreconcilable impasse. thank you anons for trying to explain it to me, but i can't and don't agree with the point that the ritual hinges on.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 17:54:30 2020 No.15204254 >>15204223 It's a ritual, it's not a parable. Parables are explanations of something, a ritual is when you are meant to do something following a protocol.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:03:53 2020 No.15204337 >>15204223 >metaphysical wizardry are you calling the power of God "metaphysical wizardry"?

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:07:55 2020 No.15204370

>>15204254
i believe the metaphor or non literal part is when he says that sustenance is his blood and flesh. i believe he's saying something more in line with "i myself am sustenance and life and truth, whatever you do, do it through and for me". that's the impasse i was talking about.

>>15204337
i don't believe that priests actually turn wine into His blood, so i don't believe it's God's power but a misguided belief in a kind of magic. I certainly believe God is capable of that and more, I just don't think transubstantiation is true or even necessary. so no, im not calling the authority of God wizardry because i honestly don't believe the catholic church 100% represents the will or nature or authority of God.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:09:16 2020 No.15204378 >>15204370 and obviously "whatever you do" doesn't mean evil is absolved. we're imperfect but should strive to abide in Christ the way Christ could abide in the will of the Lord.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:16:20 2020 No.15204451

>>15204370
>priests actually turn wine into His blood,
Nobody in their right mind believes this either. It's a miracle caused by God, not by a priest.
>i believe
On what basis do you reject this extremely central and extremely well established tradition?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:18:20 2020 No.15204468 >>15204370 Well It seems I can't convince you but please before leaving take a look to this link https://www.google.com/amp/s/aleteia.org/2017/01/05/between-flesh-and-bread-the-autopsy-of-a-eucharistic-miracle/amp/

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:29:13 2020 No.15204565 >>15202171 >Christ turns nothing into bread >Christ turns water into wine >"I don't think Christ can turn things into other things."

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:30:48 2020 No.15204577

>>15204468
i absolutely will, thank you anon.

>>15204451
i don't believe God causes that miracle. not based on what ive seen in the scripture.
>on what basis
the same basis as you do, interpretation. it's only well established within your church, which is a sect like any other, prone to flaws etc. it doesn't help that the founding of the catholic church and it's split from the rest of the orthodox churches seems to be politically motivated, which to me smacks of subversion. im not convinced that the church is a direct continuation of peter, inherently authoritative or even not actively acting to undermine the faith, and unless i can be convinced through scriptural passages i tend to be obstinate. that's why this conversation mostly hinges on the belief that Christ was being literal about eating his flesh and blood. "the church" is not a citation to me, because ive seen first hand how Satan corrupts and subverts churches.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:33:12 2020 No.15204600

>>15204565
you're misconstruing what i said, i don't think he's incapable, i think he doesn't in this case because of all the things i actually said. you are giving your sect a poor image by intentionally misreading me, i wouldn't blaspheme against Christ in that way. i think you have Christ and your sect of the church mixed up together, and when i express doubt about the dogma of your particular church, it's as if i have attacked Christ.

even you have to realize your church is not God.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:36:05 2020 No.15204625 >>15204600 >your church is not God. The Church was founded by God.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:36:10 2020 No.15204626 >>15204577 >scriptural passages Not authoritative, as they were compiled and canonized by these same 'subverters' who it's not even clear descend from Peter.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:39:08 2020 No.15204662

>>15204577
>which is a sect like any other
>EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE BRO THERE IS NO TRUTH EXCEPT THIS COLLECTION OF WORDS WHICH MAGICALLY DESCENDS FROM THE SKY AND HAS NO TIES TO AN ACTUAL HISTORICLA BODY OF PEOPLE!
This is just gnosticism applied to the church and to history.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:40:06 2020 No.15204667 File: 382 KB, 955x1174, Jehan Cauvin (PBUH).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw reading over all this Pilpul >mfw I realize papists are literally pharisees

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:41:13 2020 No.15204679

>>15204600
John 6:53-55
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink.

>Protestants
>Nooooo it's not really his flesh and blood!

1 Corinthians 11:23-27
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

>Protestants
>Noooooo it's just a symbol even though Jesus says it's his body and blood and partaking of it unworthily is a sin against his literal body and blood.

>because of all the things i actually said
This board is ANONYMOUS.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:42:53 2020 No.15204693 >>15204679 >For My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink. NOO THIS IS MAGIC HE WAS SPEAKING IN PARABLES REAL MEANS SYMBOLICAL

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:44:10 2020 No.15204702 >>15204679 >>15204693 But it doesn't taste like flesh and blood. Was Jesus lying?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:44:58 2020 No.15204706 >>15204702 >he doesn't understand transubstantiation

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:46:00 2020 No.15204713 File: 9 KB, 203x248, 1587696091049.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw when you have to LITERALLY invert what 'real' means in order to fit it into your modern atheistic view of what God is capable of

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:46:26 2020 No.15204716 >>15204706 Its either really flesh and blood or it isn't. Pick one Jew.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:48:26 2020 No.15204731 >>15204702 Chapter and verse where Jesus tells us it will taste like flesh and blood? >>15204716 >Jew Jews denied Christ in the same manner you're denying his body and blood right now.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:50:30 2020 No.15204746

>>15204731
Jews also made up shit that wasn't in Scripture and were admonished by Jesus for it you are Kike.

Mark 7
7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[b]

8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:51:37 2020 No.15204758 >>15204716 False dilemma

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 18:58:51 2020 No.15204806 >>15204746 >Scripture Objectively define scripture and objectively show why you trust it as a protestant.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:00:51 2020 No.15204820

>>15204806
WCF
Chapter I.
Of the Holy Scripture.

I. Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;(a) yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.(b) Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;(c) and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing:(d) which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;(e) those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.(f)

(a) Rom. 2:14, 15; Rom. 1:19, 20; Ps. 19:1, 2, 3; Rom. 1:32, with chap. 2:1.
(b) I Cor. 1:21; I Cor. 2:13, 14.
(c) Heb. 1:1.
(d) Prov. 22:19, 20, 21; Luke 1:3, 4; Rom. 15:4; Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; Isa. 8:19, 20.
(e) II Tim. 3:15; II Pet. 1:19.
(f) Heb. 1:1, 2.

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:

Of the Old Testament:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
I. Samuel
II. Samuel
I. Kings
II. Kings
I. Chronicles
II. Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
The Song of Songs
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

Of the New Testament:

The Gospels according to
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
The Acts of the Apostles
Paul’s Epistles
To the Romans
Corinthians I.
Corinthians II.
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
Thessalonians I.
Thessalonians II.
To Timothy I.
To Timothy II.
To Titus
To Philemon
The Epistle to the Hebrews
The Epistle of James
The first and second Epistles of Peter
The first, second, and third Epistles of John
The Epistle of Jude
The Revelation of John

All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.(g)

(g) Luke 16:29, 31; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 22:18, 19; II Tim. 3:16.

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.(h)

(h) Luke 24:27, 44; Rom. 3:2; II Pet. 1:21.

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.(i)

(i) II Pet. 1:19, 21; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:01:59 2020 No.15204827

>>15204820
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.(k) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.(l)

(k) I Tim. 3:15.
(l) I John 2:20, 27; John 16:13, 14; I Cor. 2:10, 11, 12; Isa. 59:21.

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.(m) Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:(n) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.(o)

(m) II Tim. 3:15, 16, 17; Gal. 1:8, 9; II Thess. 2:2.
(n) John 6:45, I Cor. 2:9 to 12.
(o) I Cor. 11:13, 14; I Cor. 14:26, 40.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:(p) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.(q)

(p) II Pet. 3:16.
(q) Psalm 119:105, 130.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:03:01 2020 No.15204836

>>15204827
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(r) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(s) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(t) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(u) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;(w) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(x)

(r) Matt. 5:18.
(s) Isa. 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39, 46.
(t) John 5:39.
(u) I Cor. 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 27, 28.
(w) Col. 3:16.
(x) Rom. 15:4.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.(y)

(y) II Pet. 1:20, 21; Acts 15:15, 16.

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.(z)

(z) Matt. 22:29, 31; Eph. 2:20 with Acts 28:25.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:03:16 2020 No.15204838
File: 23 KB, 190x266, 1587942162754.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15204820
>WCF
>Chapter I.
>Of the Holy Scripture.
>I. Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;(a) yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.(b) Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;(c) and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing:(d) which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;(e) those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.(f)
>(a) Rom. 2:14, 15; Rom. 1:19, 20; Ps. 19:1, 2, 3; Rom. 1:32, with chap. 2:1.
>(b) I Cor. 1:21; I Cor. 2:13, 14.
>(c) Heb. 1:1.
>(d) Prov. 22:19, 20, 21; Luke 1:3, 4; Rom. 15:4; Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; Isa. 8:19, 20.
>(e) II Tim. 3:15; II Pet. 1:19.
>(f) Heb. 1:1, 2.
>II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:
>Of the Old Testament:
>Genesis
>Exodus
>Leviticus
>Numbers
>Deuteronomy
>Joshua
>Judges
>Ruth
>I. Samuel
>II. Samuel
>I. Kings
>II. Kings
>I. Chronicles
>II. Chronicles
>Ezra
>Nehemiah
>Esther
>Job
>Psalms
>Proverbs
>Ecclesiastes
>The Song of Songs
>Isaiah
>Jeremiah
>Lamentations
>Ezekiel
>Daniel
>Hosea
>Joel
>Amos
>Obadiah
>Jonah
>Micah
>Nahum
>Habakkuk
>Zephaniah
>Haggai
>Zechariah
>Malachi
>Of the New Testament:
>The Gospels according to
>Matthew
>Mark
>Luke
>John
>The Acts of the Apostles
>Paul’s Epistles
>To the Romans
>Corinthians I.
>Corinthians II.
>Galatians
>Ephesians
>Philippians
>Colossians
>Thessalonians I.
>Thessalonians II.
>To Timothy I.
>To Timothy II.
>To Titus
>To Philemon
>The Epistle to the Hebrews
>The Epistle of James
>The first and second Epistles of Peter
>The first, second, and third Epistles of John
>The Epistle of Jude
>The Revelation of John
>All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.(g)
>(g) Luke 16:29, 31; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 22:18, 19; II Tim. 3:16.
>III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.(h)
>(h) Luke 24:27, 44; Rom. 3:2; II Pet. 1:21.
>IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.(i)
>(i) II Pet. 1:19, 21; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:04:22 2020 No.15204844

>>15204223
Yes, but at the same time the evangelist writing points out when Jesus is speaking in parables or metaphors. When Jesus speaks metaphorically saying " Tear this temple down, and I'll bring it back up in three days", John and Mark then point out that he was spekaing of his body and not the actual temple.

I think that when Christ says "Eat this for this is my body... Drink this for its my blood", he is speaking literally and none of the evangelist make any implication it's supposed to be a metaphor.

If we can't believe in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then can we believe in the virgin birth? or the transfiguration? or the Resurection? Or should we take them all as metaphors?

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:04:31 2020 No.15204847
File: 279 KB, 827x953, 1586635418349.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15204827
>V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.(k) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.(l)
>(k) I Tim. 3:15.
>(l) I John 2:20, 27; John 16:13, 14; I Cor. 2:10, 11, 12; Isa. 59:21.
>VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.(m) Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:(n) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.(o)
>(m) II Tim. 3:15, 16, 17; Gal. 1:8, 9; II Thess. 2:2.
>(n) John 6:45, I Cor. 2:9 to 12.
>(o) I Cor. 11:13, 14; I Cor. 14:26, 40.
>VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:(p) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.(q)
>(p) II Pet. 3:16.
>(q) Psalm 119:105, 130.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:04:42 2020 No.15204851

>>15204600
>i don't think he's incapable, i think he doesn't in this case

>And when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 1 Cor 11:24

He *empowers* them to do what He did.

The next question is: what, exactly, did He do?

Well, consider that Christ, the Lamb of God (John 1:29), was presiding at a Passover meal, the focus of which was eating the Passover lamb (Ex 12:8). And consider his remarks in the sixth chapter of John.

Consider that the early Church universally believed in the equivalent of the modern Catholic understanding of the Real Presence, and even indeed in Transubstantiation, albeit without using that later-developed terminology.

See, e.g., Ignatius of Antioch, writing circa 117 AD:
>"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again."
-Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1

>I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ.
- Letter to the Romans 7:3

Examples can be multiplied. See, e.g.:
>https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-real-presence
>https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-early-church-believed-in-the-eucharist

The fact that the early Christians *universally* believed in the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist demonstrates that the Catholic understanding of the New Testament in this regard is not merely a peculiar reading/interpretation of the texts. The congruence of the well-documented belief of the early Christians with Catholic belief respecting the Eucharist is something as close to conclusive proof as you are going to find in a matter that involves a dispute over the correct understanding of an ancient text.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:05:53 2020 No.15204861 File: 90 KB, 686x526, 090.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15204838 >>15204847 Massive cope. You asked and got your answer kike. Thank you for greentexting it though. Now more people may be inclined to see it.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:06:00 2020 No.15204865
File: 119 KB, 640x640, 1586091469273.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15204836
>VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(r) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(s) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(t) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(u) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;(w) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(x)
>(r) Matt. 5:18.
>(s) Isa. 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39, 46.
>(t) John 5:39.
>(u) I Cor. 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 27, 28.
>(w) Col. 3:16.
>(x) Rom. 15:4.
>IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.(y)
>(y) II Pet. 1:20, 21; Acts 15:15, 16.
>X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.(z)
>(z) Matt. 22:29, 31; Eph. 2:20 with Acts 28:25.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:07:26 2020 No.15204877 I think I need to start thanking our Lord that he did not make me an anglo...

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:10:03 2020 No.15204893
File: 36 KB, 712x533, 1587697353070.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15204861
>literally believes in the castrated masoretic text which removes numerous prophecies about Christ
>literally believes in a gutted canon used by the kabbalist apostate rabbis
>calls another person a "kike"

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:12:01 2020 No.15204902 File: 19 KB, 510x650, J_Gresham_Machen_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15204893 >his church had to canonize 7 more books during the Reformation to justify their false doctrines >not a Kike church

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:17:33 2020 No.15204938
File: 78 KB, 416x435, 1587905712221.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

@15204902
>during the Reformation
>NOOOOO CHRISTIANITY ONLY EXISTS IN THE WEST ALL THE APOSTLES DID NOT USE THE SEPTUAGINT AS THEIR SOURCE FOR YHE OLD TESTAMENT
>NOO AMERICA IS A HIGHLY SPIRITUAL COUNTRY AND KNOWS THE TRUTH BETTER THAN ALL TRADITION!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:20:03 2020 No.15204953 File: 2.28 MB, 1335x904, Vatican II.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15204938 If you tradition was so good why did you throw it out the window in the '60s?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:20:44 2020 No.15204956 File: 45 KB, 425x597, totally a christian person.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15204902 This. Those frickin kikes.... opens up my HEBREW "Bible" Praise HaShem and the Elohim, may the Sephirot guide you!

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:22:00 2020 No.15204963 >>15204861 Not the other anon but without Tradition how do you know the canon is right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:22:10 2020 No.15204964 >>15204956 >Praise HaShem and the Elohim what the problem with that? Elohim and Hashem are Jesus

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:24:33 2020 No.15204978 >>15204902 >during the Reformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome#Decretum_Gelasianum_and_damasine

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:27:56 2020 No.15204991 >>15204964 >Hashem is Jesus No, we do not follow the rabbis and do not call Christ "The Name". We can call him YHWH freely without angering the lesser polytheistic gods knows as "sephirot", as we are not beholden to lesser spirits.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:30:54 2020 No.15205006

>>15204963
The oracles of God were committed unto the Jews. The Apocryphal books were never part of their canon.

>WCF 1.3
>The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.(h)

>(h) Luke 24:27, 44; Rom. 3:2; II Pet. 1:21.

Luke 24:27
>27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:44
>44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Romans 3:2
>2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
2 Peter 1:21
>21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:32:53 2020 No.15205016
File: 612 KB, 1280x720, 1586852471591.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15205006
>>WCF 1.3
>>The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:33:44 2020 No.15205021

>>15204963
>>15205006
Also we know the NT books are canon for the same reason everyone else does. They meet certain criteria. There are many means by which the Holy Ghost have made Scripture known unto us. For the NT books some of these are consistency in doctrine, the authors being in direct contact with Christ or the apostles, wide acceptance and use by churches in all regions through guidance of the Spirit, and those books having produced dynamic changes in lives as used by the Spirit.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:35:39 2020 No.15205034
File: 98 KB, 822x283, 26166975_2004573233089521_721682219819207641_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15205006
This is a terrible answer. It amounts to saying "God just ensured that we know what the scriptures are". Which does not bloody explain why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which are 1,500 years older than Protestantism, use a different canon from Protestantism. If the Holy Spirit just simply ensures that Christians know, then why do Christians disagree? Your forefather, St. Augustine, affirmed texts that Protestants reject as apocrypha. The story of the woman who married the 7 brothers, that is from the Book of Tobit, which you all reject. The Book of Sirach (Chapter 24) contains an indisputable prophecy of Jesus, and yet you reject that. If the Holy Spirit will ensure that Christians know, why do Christians manifestly not know?

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:41:38 2020 No.15205063

>>15204902

>>15205006
>The oracles of God were committed unto the Jews. The Apocryphal books were never part of their canon.

The deuterocanonical (aka apocryphal) books were part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that is the primary version of the scriptures quoted by and alluded to throughout the New Testament (both Gospels and Epistles).

*After* Christ's death and Resurrection (i.e., when God no longer placed religious authority in the Jews), at the "council of Jamnia," the Jews excluded the seven deuterocanonical books from the Jewish Bible.

But they were included in the Christian canon at the time the canon was fixed in the late fourth, early fifth century (during the life of Augustine).

A thousand years later, Luther booted them from the canon, for no good reason other than to get rid of the book of Maccabees, which pretty clearly endorses prayer to/intercession of saints.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:41:49 2020 No.15205066

>>15205034
We can cite church fathers all day back and forth all day long on every single point of Christian doctrine. Its a wonder they agreed on anything.
Jerome did not consider the Apocrypha canon.

>The story of the woman who married the 7 brothers, that is from the Book of Tobit, which you all reject.
And Jude quoted from Enoch. That doesn't make Enoch canon does it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:44:49 2020 No.15205083 File: 102 KB, 960x960, 1587490384756.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15205066 >We can cite church fathers all day back and forth all day long on every single point of Christian doctrine. Its a wonder they agreed on anything.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:50:52 2020 No.15205128

I cannot take non-boomer 4channel lit protestants seriously. They are like rebellious children to my eyes. They deny thousands of years of tradition where the Holy Spirit presumably just forgets to let people know that they are using a false canon, and yet they alone are guided. It's completely laughable.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:54:30 2020 No.15205162
File: 24 KB, 286x286, PDXWudRG_400x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>I cannot take non-boomer 4channel lit protestants seriously. They are like rebellious children to my eyes. They deny thousands of years of tradition where the Holy Spirit presumably just forgets to let people know that they are using a false canon, and yet they alone are guided. It's completely laughable.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:55:03 2020 No.15205165

>>15205066
>And Jude quoted from Enoch. That doesn't make Enoch canon does it?
Fair point, I take back what I said of Tobit.

But
>We can cite church fathers all day back and forth all day long [...] Its a wonder they agreed on anything.
You yourself just said that the Holy Spirit will ensure that Christians know the truth. So how is it "a wonder" that the leading Christian theologians of the early church "agreed on anything"? Because the Holy Spirit would ensure that they did, as you said it would.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:57:30 2020 No.15205183
File: 243 KB, 643x758, 1587945415847.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>I cannot take non-boomer 4channel lit protestants seriously. They are like rebellious children to my eyes. They deny thousands of years of tradition where the Holy Spirit presumably just forgets to let people know that they are using a false canon, and yet they alone are guided. It's completely laughable.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 19:59:31 2020 No.15205196 >>15205165 I shouldn't have said that but the point stands about Jerome. The ECF were not in universal agreement on things as Roman Catholics would have everyone believe. There has never been universal consent of the ECF on anything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:00:11 2020 No.15205201 File: 303 KB, 642x705, 1560497207293.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Anyone here becoming a priest or a monk?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:00:33 2020 No.15205206 >>15205196 *everything

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:01:36 2020 No.15205216 >>15205196 >The ECF were not in universal agreement on things I wouldn't claim that, but there was a general consensus on most questions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:03:34 2020 No.15205229 >>15205201 I am considering it after finishing my major.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:04:33 2020 No.15205238 >>15205229 God speed and make us proud anon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:09:12 2020 No.15205271 >>15205229 based.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:12:30 2020 No.15205293 File: 39 KB, 400x400, AyzAiymD_400x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15205229 Neither trad nor modernist but one good shepherd in Jesus Christ

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:14:04 2020 No.15205302
File: 27 KB, 345x329, 42f3c297041f68df59c1a3643da43f85.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15205216
I know Jerome did conform to the Church in the end but whether he did in good conscience who knows.
As for me I cannot consider the Apocryphal books Scripture in good conscience. Neither can I believe many of the doctrines of the RCC after the Fourth Lateran Council.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:16:10 2020 No.15205312 >>15205302 >after the Fourth Lateran Council can you elaborate?

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:23:08 2020 No.15205347
File: 262 KB, 754x1298, 1587945854831.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15205201
I'm contemplating it. How does one know if one is truly chosen? Right now I'm praying for the intercession of Saint Peter and Paul to gain an undeniable sign of being either chosen or rejected for priesthood.

Lately, I gradually moved closer to understanding that while I could do other things and even do them well, my true meaning would be in serving God. I've had passing and relatively deep interests in many subjects and all of them seem to have been to direct my attention towards God, as all of them were in some way (indirectly) tied to God and were steps to get me to see the beauty/logic in this world and recognize Christ. I'm afraid of this being a passing interest too, but there seems to be a certainty here which I didn't see with anything else.

>>15205238
>>15205271
>>15205229
>>15205293
Based.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:25:31 2020 No.15205358

>>15205312
For me the FLC represents a time when the church in the west started becoming the modern RCC. Something distinct from what it was prior. I think James White holds that view as well.

Its always made sense to me because just a century afterwards there was John Wycliffe, then Jan Hus, then Luther and Calvin with a full on Reformation.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:34:10 2020 No.15205397
File: 87 KB, 605x800, EVRa9ROXgAEYU0j.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15205347
>I'm afraid of this being a passing interest too
Here's the best advice you'll ever get.
Don't make the decision until you're 30 years of age. You're right to be cautious. The internet and the culture of aesthetic association does a lot to people's minds.

Now is the time to read all the counter-arguments, so that you may be sure of what action to take.

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:34:56 2020 No.15205402
File: 49 KB, 812x1344, 4chan_christian_pol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15192261
Over the years I've come to the conclusion that traditional Catholicism and Orthodoxy are superior to Protestantism, but you're making a mockery of your Church.
Also, the Catholic Church hasn't had a Pope since, at the earliest, the 1960s.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:39:07 2020 No.15205428 >>15205402 >the Catholic Church hasn't had a Pope since, at the earliest, the 1960s. cringe

Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:44:21 2020 No.15205467

>>15204679
>this board is ANONYMOUS
in the exact same post you summed up as "I don't think Christ can turn things into other things" i explained what precedent i saw for metaphorically consuming truth, in the case of the last supper, the truth of Christ, but you intentionally ignored that to attack a strawman. I think eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man is directly in reference to the consumption of the truth of Christ. i get we disagree, but you're being snarky, there were things that i said that explained why i don't think those pieces of scripture make sense to me as an explanation of the belief in transubstantiation.

>>15204625
the roman catholic church split from the original orthodox churches due to power disputes. God found the Church, but the church that you inhabit now does not necessarily belong to God any more than a methodist. things get corrupted and led astray. we're warned of upcoming false teachings and subversions of the church and doctrine and that's why im hesitant to accept an appeal to authority that isn't based in scripture.

>>15204626
i do not think a church subject to disputes of power and human error is comparable to the scripture. the scripture i believe is tethered together by God but i don't have the same faith in the catholic church for a variety of reasons. im not a "faith only" Christian but i am a "scripture only" Christian. maybe this is an error of mine and that i should have faith in the integrity of a given sect, but looking at the political and social goings on, the ties the vatican have etc, i simply don't. i don't have much faith in your protestant cousins either for what that's worth. earlier in the thread i mentioned how hypocritical many of them appear to be in the US.

>>15204662
i don't believe in relativity one bit. human institutions as an on going entity are far more corruptible that static words. truth doesn't change but the human nucleus morphs constantly. as Christians we should at least agree that there is a central truth that we both rationalize (to a point, until faith takes up its role) and "intuit" to a degree. we all agree that the scripture is divinely inspired and unaltered by the will of God, which is why i trust it. i know it has human origins like the church, but the church does not have the same protection imo. look at what happened to the hebrews after israel expands up to the coming of Christ. God was directly involved with their church and it fell to subversion anyway since humans have free will. the way i see it from what ive seen in the catholic church, it's not an entity to be trusted. i think this constant straw manning of my take comes from you being wrapped up in an identitarian way with your church. im not attacking that, but i sense that you're trying to tear me down more than have a real exchange which doesn't exactly heighten my opinion of the catholic tradition. you are the current embodiment of it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 26 20:48:21 2020 No.15205495 >>15205229 God bless you anon

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]