ask a devout Protestant anything I will say "I don't

>>3347322
>devout Protestant

How did you become a Christian?

>>3347324
I was saved during a NDE by divine intervention
Went seeking for which God it was, and I found Christianity to be the most satisfying emotionally and intellectually.
I hesitate giving the whole story because I don't want my own personal story to influence anyone (not that it would here of all places, another reason to keep it to myself) but I want everyone else to develop their own experiences with God.

>>3347334
>I was saved

Yes, that's what I asked. How you were saved.

Not how you were spared from dying.

>>3347338
by faith alone, if thats what you want to hear

>>3347322
Look, man, if you want to come here and start a thread about being a "devout protestant", you should really have some definitions of what devout means, what protestant means, and how, and if, you became a Christian.

And be able to back it up with the bible.

Saying you looked at all the gods and the one you thought most coherent was the Christian god tells me one thing.

You don't know there is only one God.

File: crashing this church.jpg (275KB, 716x3234px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 716x3234px

What do you think of this picture?

>>3347343
See, this is why I get so frustrated.

>I'm a freemason, AMA.

How did you become a freemason?

>I went down to the local lodge and asked if I could join, they said yes, I did x, y, and z, and now I'm a freemason.

That's an explanation that ANY freemason should be able to rattle off at the drop of a hat.

>>3347347
points taken
you can ask a question if you'd like
thread is already made
>>3347350
>What do you think of this picture?
not much in particular
>>3347351
got a question?

>>3347352
I'll reiterate the unanswered question.

How did you become a Christian?

>>3347322
How do you reconcile Ezekiel 45:17-25 with well, pretty much everything Paul says about what the coming of Jesus did to the Law?

>>3347356
Not OP

By reading Jeremiah 31:31.

>>3347356
Still not OP

And by reading Ephesians 2

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

>>3347355
I honestly don't even know what kind of answer you're looking for
I accepted Christ as my savior, and at that moment the Holy Spirit entered me and I became a Christian. I never went to any specific places to sign up as in your example.
>>3347356
it would help if you explained specifically in what way you think it contradicts Paul in the first place

>>3347373
>I accepted Christ as my savior, and at that moment the Holy Spirit entered me and I became a Christian.

This is the answer I was looking for.

>>3347373
I wouldn't start with him, if I were you, for this reason:

Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

>>3347322
do protestants believe you go to hell when you commit suicide?

>>3347362
Does not resolve anything: The idea that the Covenant would be known in no way changes what is going to be done.

>>3347372
That just means you're making the claim that Paul thinks Ezekiel is simply wrong. That's hardly reconciliation.

>>3347373
Well, you should really be familiar with this stuff, don't you think? But it's part of a Messianic prophecy of Ezekiel's, which features the Messiah continuing on the animal sacrifice that Paul claims is no longer necessary.

>>3347393
No. All sins were forgiven at the cross, including murder, including self-murder. If you're saved and commit suicide, which is pretty rare, you would be absent from your flesh, and present with the Lord.

If you're not saved, and commit suicide, you have just slammed shut a door that cannot open.

>>3347394
Unlike.

Unlike the Old Covenant.

Unlike.

Not like.

Different.

>>3347322
What is a "devout Protestant", is that 'murican for born-again Chiristian or so?

>>3347394
Paul would not say Ezekiel, or anything in the scriptures is wrong, just you.

He would plead with you to accept your own messiah, but he's a busy guy and would eventually just let you multiply your own sin to your own condemnation.

>>3347377
glad to have finally reached it my friend
>>3347393
I don't think there's an agreed position on this, but I'll give you mine
We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not by a lack of sins. Therefore, theoretically, you could still go to heaven after suicide... BUT, the fact you did it in the first place could implicate that your faith in Christ is not a genuine faith to begin with...
>>3347405
I guess so

>>3347394
Oh, I see the problem here.

The sacrificial system of old was to foreshadow the sacrifice of the Lamb of God that was to come in the future.

The sacrificial kingdom set up when Jesus sits on David's throne in Jerusalem to rule the world for a thousand years will look BACK to the time when Jesus, the Lamb of God, was slain for the sins of mankind.

That's how.

>>3347322
if you died and had an NDE, why the fuck wouldn't you share it with people? thats the most effective way to convince people you schmuck, you're not a scholar or an expert so why would we ask you anything lmao fuck outta here

File: 1493849159541.jpg (61KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1000x800px

>>3347427
>asks a question
>"why would we ask you anything"

>>3347427
Not according to the bible.

Luke 16
And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

Proof: You, hearing that from this NDE is now a Christian; are you now ready, willing and able to give your heart to Jesus?

Do you believe the Catholic Church is Satan's trickery?

Also, what's your opinion on the Orthodox Church?

>>3347416
>I guess so
Do you have a denomination you lean towards, or do you just nitpick from the bible whatever suits your personal taste?

>>3347434
Why are quoting out of context, and that has little relevance since YOU brought up the NDE dumbass, Jesus performed numerous miracles so did the prophets so don't act like God is camera shy you pleb, go on, what happened in the NDE?

>>3347455
yes

heretics, mostly for the doctrine of salvation by works. The other stuff like prayer to Mary/saints, infant baptism is all secondary
>>3347467
Baptist. Southern Baptist if I had to choose
but I don't have any specific confessions that I really adhere to, so a little from column A and B I guess

>>3347478
Not OP. Thought I made that clear.

Anon: Tell people you came back from the dead and are now a Christian! That's the best way to get people saved!

Me: Not according to the bible. [Cites passage Jesus' story about rich man and beggar in Hades, rich man wanted to warn his family, but it would have been futile.]

We all up to speed now?

>>3347482
>yes

Sooo...everyone prior to the Reformation was praying wrong and is now in Hell?

>>3347496
Yes, papist, Christianity started with the Catholic friar Martin Luther was excommunicated. Prior to the Catholic friar Martin Luther being excommunicated, absolutely nobody on earth, ever, knew how to talk to God.

NOP

>>3347496
Certain prayers were wrong, certain ones were right. If they were praying to mary and saints then yeah they were wrong
Idk who is in hell and who isn't

>>3347508
#papistrekt

Do you know why you worship on Sunday?

>>3347522
Guarantee that you don't know the true reason.

NOP

>>3347501
The catholic bible is a false bible, anyone who worships idols is hated by god, and they are in hell.

>>3347526
Of course it is. It deified Mary, right from Genesis forward.

>>3347524
I don't worship on Sunday.

>>3347522
>>3347535
I worship every day

>>3347508
>Certain prayers were wrong, certain ones were right.

So Satan in all its power only tricked people into worshipping, for centuries, in a half-right/half-wrong Church. Why not trick everyone into converting back to Paganism, Hellenism, or heck, Zoroastrianism and have a 100% rate of people going to Hell.

>>3347539
best way to spread a lie is to sandwich it between 2 truths

>>3347535
The Jewish sabbath begins Friday night at sundown and runs to Saturday night at Sundown.

The first Christians that wanted to differentiate themselves from the Jews, began worshiping God on the day Jesus rose from the dead, Sunday, and stopped keeping the Jewish sabbath.

It has nothing to do with sun worship.

It has everything to do with Resurrection Sunday.

And even at that, if any Christian wants to make Tuesdays special, then that's fine. Wednesdays. Mondays. Saturdays. No days. All days.

It doesn't matter, so long as they are all done unto the Lord, and out of the conviction of the heart of the man.

Christian liberty. Google it.

>>3347539
Catholicism is paganism, and most people are tricked into going to hell. You included.

>>3347538
You should've told God that when he gave the 10 commandments.

"God, you see, I got a problem with this 4th commandment here. See I worship everyday, so it kind of a dumb law for me to follow."

>>3347455
>Also, what's your opinion on the Orthodox Church?

Not a dime's worth of difference between Romanism and Constantinoplism.

>>3347555
Are you under the delusion that Christians are Jews?

>>3347555
that isn't my reasoning at all, please stop blatantly misrepresenting me

>>3347555
Colossians 2
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

>>3347555
Romans 14
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.

>>3347560
>>3347388

>>3347546
I totally agree with your statement that a number of the first Christians began to worship on Sunday to distinguish themselves from Jews to avoid persecution.

But that didn't make it lawful to do so.

The 4th commandment was very clear about what day was to be set aside for God. Nowhere does it imply we can decide to change it.

Your "make all days special" quip is the same idea the above poster had. Which is just an insult to the 4th commandment, and ultimately to God. "God, I think it makes more sense if we set every day aside for you. Your law is imperfect"

>>3347322
I have to go, brother, but I would ask you this one favor. Please call yourself a Christian.

The Catholics coined the word Protestant to pretend that they are the heart and core of Christianity, and the people who protested them 500 years ago were damned heretics. Then they set out to slaughter every single Christian and Jew on earth, and have managed a kill count of over 100 million so far.

>>3347575
>>3347568
>>3347563

Unlike.

Jeremiah 31:31

Isaiah 53: All about Jesus.

>>3347581
you're right, that would have been better and more accurate for me to say
thanks for your help today my friend

I saved this post from awhileback, probably would have been better to screenshot it

"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. Matthew 6:7

Catholics who teach perpetual virginity of mary : "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" Matthew 13:55-56

BUh BUHT YOU NEED PRIESTS TO INTERPRET DA BIBL :"you (all Christians) also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. " 1 Peter 2:5
"But you (all Christians) are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; " 1 Peter 2:9
"Jesus has made us (all Christians) to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen." Revelation 1:6

Baptism - Full immersion not sprinkling

Statues - Idol worship

But most catholics would never understand this because it requires actually READING the bible not just commentaries and Aquinas.

"You have made them (all Christians) to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth." Revelation 5:10

>>3347592
Fuck i think i lost half of it

>>3347586
I rejoice to meet you, and to have another brother in heaven who also toiled in this place to win people to Christ.

May the Lord bless you and keep you; may He turn His face towards you, and give you peace.

>>3347601
thank you, please keep me in your prayers

>>3347557
No, but I recognize that Christians are still bound to the moral law otherwise known as the Ten Commandments.

>>3347560
Okay. You worship everyday. Which day of the week do you abstain from secular work and dedicate your time strictly to studying the Word and advancing the Kingdom of God?

>>3347563
This verse is referring entirely to ceremonial ordinances. "Sabbaths" is referring to the ceremonies that occurred on a Sabbath, such as Feast of Tabernacles, Feast of First Fruits, and more. Previous versus make it more clear that we're talking about the Mosaic law here, not the Decalogue.

>>3347568
Also refers to ceremonial days. The word Sabbath isn't even there. Read the surrounding verses.

Do you play EU4? And if you do, do you go Protestant or Reformed?

>>3347583
In Jeremiah 31:31 God says He will write the Law on our hearts.

What law? Does it say "new law"?

If it's really written on your heart, wouldn't you follow it?

It was one tree, Adam and Eve could have everything in the garden but that one thing.

>>3347322
Are you Reformed?

>>3347647
Placed there as a test of loyalty

>>3347493
yea stay out of other peoples business ma nigga, fuck outta here with your misinterpretations

>>3347334
>>3347427
>>3347431
>>3347434
>>3347478
>>3347493
>>3347654
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm647n1360A

The only NDE i would trust, everyone should see this in their life span

>>3347654
Luke 16
The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

“Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’

“Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’

But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

>>3347400
>slammed a shut door that cannot open
ok clearly you are a hack and a fraud and not a theologian, why are all you faggots asking questions to a bait thread

>>3347630
Is there ever a reason to go reformed?

File: 1265674115754.gif (203KB, 420x236px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 420x236px

>>3347674

It's been a while since I played, but there were always rumors about Reformed being OP.

>>3347394
Where does Paul say animal sacrifice is no longer necessary?

>>3347674
to larp

>>3347684
As what? A shitty player?

>>3347696
>As what?
glorious calvinist french empire

>>3347667
what denomination are ya

>>3347681
God symbolically says it when he rends the temple veil upon Jesus's death.

>>3347322

Were you born retarded or did you have an accident?

>>3347667
nothing is impossible for God he can reverse anything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNFK_4yG02o

>>3347681
Hebrews 10
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

>>3347669
Once you die, your eternal destiny is set.

There is no Limbo. There is no Purgatory. These are lies of the papists to bring gold into the treasury. Very successfully, too.

>>3347732
>Hebrews
Pseudepigraphic, not Paul.

>>3347747
>Pseudepigraphic, not Paul
It never claims to be Pauline you pseudo-intellectual atheist retard

>>3347718
>God can reverse anything

Even his own judgments? So it's possible to pray for someone in Hell and maybe God will forgive them?

>>3347758
The author imitates Paul's style and tries to hint that he is the author. It's also traditionally attributed to Paul.

Anyway why did you reply to me with that if you knew it wasn't Paul?

>>3347747
Very bold of you to assert that Hebrews was not written by Paul.

>>3347792
>The author imitates Paul's style and tries to hint that he is the author
The author expresses Pauline concepts, but does not imitate Paul's style. He consistently uses different terms for the same idea. It is also more likely that Paul would begin with a greeting featuring his name. The author also show's they know Timothy, so all this evidence suggests that it was a companion of Paul, such as Luke or Barnabas.
>Anyway why did you reply to me with that if you knew it wasn't Paul?
I'm not that other anon

>>3347792
>tries to imitate Paul's style
Paul almost always begins his letters with a greeting identifying his audience and himself as well as closing with a farewell. The author of Hebrews does neither of these so I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's pseudoepigraphic. If anything the mystical language in Hebrews suggest more of a johannine style.

>>3347830
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Hebrews#Authorship

>in the 4th century, Jerome and Augustine of Hippo supported Paul's authorship: the Church largely agreed to include Hebrews as the fourteenth letter of Paul, and affirmed this authorship until the Reformation

Maybe from the fact that the Church was convinced it was Pauline for a thousand years?

>>3347830
He also always closes with "Grace to you" or some very similar variant of that message.

Which also is in the closing of Hebrews.

>>3347322
>protestants understanding context
>thinks nobody is allowed to kneel

>>3347857
Just another example of Roman traditions obscuring critical thinking.

>>3347322
Why dont protestants care about things like early christian history, or at the very least reject the most common academic ideas on it?

Would be so sad if Hebrews wasn't included. It's probably the most well-written book in the new testament.

>>3347880
be specific

>>3347880
We understand early Christian history. We just follow what the Bible says before we follow what the mainstream Christians did at any given time.

>>3347880
It's funny you should say that considering the early church was closer to Protestantism in the sense that it was less hierarchical, institutionalized and centralized than what Rome later turned it into.

>>3347322
How do you justify "sola fide"?

>>3347929
paul: "you are saved by faith alone, not by works"

>>3347857
The traditional Pauline attribution is not traditional like the Matthean attribution of the Gospel according to Matthew is traditional. The authorship of Hebrews was a matter of debate even in the early church.

>>3347880
I'm a Protestant and the only person I've spoken to with similar actual reading of early church fathers was Eastern Orthodox. Most Catholics just read cherrypicked quotes put out by CatholicAnswers.

>>3347770
we don't even understand what hell is completely yet, the gaze of Christ cures all, we can HOPE

File: confused black man.png (298KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 600x512px

>>3347933
>James: "you are saved by works, and not by faith alone"
???

>>3347933
>>3348008

Salvation is a gift we did not earn. God offered it to us out of his mercy. And all we need to do is believe. In that sense we are saved by faith.

But that faith will manifest itself in good works, if the faith is true. Faith without works is dead.

>>3348008
A good tree bears good fruit while a bad tree bears bad fruit.

>>3348020
good man

>>3348020
I asked a priest about this and he said basically the same thing. I don't understand where the problem is here

File: 51650635.jpg (131KB, 983x713px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 983x713px

>>3348024
A tree may become infected, then healed. It may have a good season, and a bad season.
These seasons taken together are WORKS

>>3348067
Grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?

>>3348008
That is neither what James wrote, nor what he meant.
This is a good explanation of James 2 http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/james/2.htm
>>3348067
Matthew 7:18

>>3348008
>purposely misquoting scripture
Catholics for you

File: 1476617725843.jpg (44KB, 680x765px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 680x765px

Do you prefer a Reformed or Arminian soteriology /his/?

>>3348101
OP here
Molinist, though I don't consider any of them heresies

File: DecapChrist.jpg (249KB, 640x970px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 640x970px

>>3348070
Only God can tell the difference
The thornbushes and thistles cannot

File: 1483386778131.jpg (35KB, 700x393px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 700x393px

>>3348091
Look at you, you can read the bible
Too bad I CANT

>>3348105
By their fruits you will recognize them.

File: christian_flag.jpg (174KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1600x1200px

>>3348109
Then why are you posting in this thread?

>>3348101
Calvinism makes God a horrific diabolical tyrant

>>3348121
only if its followed through consistently, which it never is
Even John Calvin said he didn't understand how his view of God's sovereignty exempted him from the origin of evil

File: socdem vaporwave jesus.jpg (143KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 768x768px

>>3348118
So others will read to me

>>3348104
>Molinism
I was not familiar with that doctrine so thanks for mentioning it and I appreciate you not being dogmatic about your preference. It's so important to be able to differentiate between essential Christian theology that is non-negotiable (like the Trinity) and less vital issues where reasonable minds can disagree but still remain in communion with each other.

>>3348096
how the fuck do you purposely misquote scripture its in the fuckin bible you faggot, different anon here
>>3348105
wtf is going on in that picture

>>3348137
calm down
the word saved isn't in that verse

>>3348127
Gee I wonder if Jesus was addressing his disciples or a single person (who made his wealth his god)

Really makes me think.

File: Pilgrim.jpg (696KB, 1081x1406px) Image search: [Google]

696KB, 1081x1406px

>>3348137
The filename is misleading because that is actually the head of John the Baptist who was decapitated at the request of Herod's wife because he rebuked her for being a harlot.

>>3348127
>For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

>>3348143
the word alone isn't in the other verse either
where do you draw the line, my friend?

>>3347322
>that image

Yet protties get triggered as fuck when they see the pope washing people's feet.

In the 16th century, Luther rejected the seven books that comprise the deuterocanonicals together with parts of Daniel and Esther. He did so because they contained passages that disagreed with his theology. Luther claimed that all matters of faith and practice were based on the bible alone, but the bible never gave Luther the authority to determine the books that belong in the bible. Luther also questioned "Whether James was in fact scripture" along with Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. He referred to Jude as a "superfluous document" and claimed that Revelation "lacks everything that I hold as apostolic or prophetic."

In rejecting the canon of the bible that was accepted by Christians for over one thousand years, Luther wrenched sacred scripture from the certain foundation upon which they had been established, namely, the infallible authority of the Catholic church.

Since protestants teach that the bible alone is their ultimate authority, each book of the bible has a cloud of suspicion hanging over it because the bible does not have an infallible table of contents that lists the books that are divinely inspired and, therefore, should be included in it. If, as Luther taught and protestants believe, the Catholic church was wrong about the deuterocanonicals, isn't it reasonable to suspect from that perspective that the Catholic church made other errors? Perhaps other books should be rejected from the bible?

>>3348196
>Yet /pol/ get triggered as fuck when they see the pope washing people's feet.
FTFY

>>3347322
How do you reconcile having as n infallible guide a book compiled by the Catholic Church with claiming that the Catholic Church is a trick of the devil?

>>3348224
Catholic church as its known today didn't exist when the bible was compiled

>>3348229

When did the Church stop existing?

File: Deuterocanonical.png (174KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 499x499px

>>3348197
Nothing Luther removed is essential for being saved besides most Protestants do not even follow Luther's personal theology anyway and many Christian denominations use Catholic bibles despite not being in affiliated with the Vatican. Papists always try to make Luther out to be the "Protestant pope" where he is some kind of role model for how to behave and what to think. What the Roman fails to understand is that Luther was reorienting the church back to Jesus Christ Himself and reminding us that we do not need men in dresses wearing fancy hats acting as middle men in our relationship with the LORD.

>>3348224
The books deemed apostolic had been deemed apostolic and had been in circulation for quite a while.

The canonization was more about formally making it official

>>3348161
i know the story, yea i looked it up, dont lie to people bro

File: Christ wants you.jpg (1MB, 1368x1464px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1368x1464px

>>3348240
Good advice.

>>3348231
I'd say when the seat of the empire moved to Constantinople and left a vacuum of power in Rome which the Bishop of Rome took.

That was the start of the Roman church-state/papacy, and the beginning of what would be a millennium of persecution of Christians that did not follow the teachings of the Pope.

>>3348229
>>3348236
>This is what protestcunts actually believe.
So when did the church become catholic? Right after it canonized the Bible?

>>3348252

So when Jesus told us that on this rock he's building his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, was he lying to us?

>>3348235

What does it to mean for a book to be essential for salvation?

>>3348265
No because the rock was Himself, not Peter.

The gates of Hell prevailed against Peter very soon after when he denied Christ three times.

File: Protip.jpg (13KB, 288x306px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 288x306px

>>3348265
The "rock" is the conviction that Jesus Christ is the messiah, the Son of the Living God.

>>3348273

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying that when Jesus changed Peter's name to rock this is him somehow referring to himself. Peter isn't the Church, and nobody ever claimed he wasn't a sinner.

File: Simple gifts.png (19KB, 333x216px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 333x216px

>>3348272
It contains the good news that God our Father sent His only begotten Son to suffer death upon the cross as a ransom for sinners and by the power of His Holy Spirit raised Him from the dead so that whoever believes in Him shall be saved.

>>3348256
Most of their doctrines were first documented by Pope Leo the Great

>>3348276
You (Peter) are rock, and upon this rock (conviction) I will build my church??

>>3348308

Are you saying that everything but the gospels are superfluous and can be disregarded?

>>3348318
And thus a new Protestant sect is born, propounding the doctrine of Gospel alone.

File: SDG.png (32KB, 658x572px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 658x572px

>>3348302
>>3348316
Πέτρος ≠ πέτρα

>>3348318
No because the epistles reiterate that good news in important variations.

>>3347898
It was certainly less hierarchical, but there was clearly a hierarchy, more over the clergy had clear authority over the laity from even the earliest documents we can find.

>>3347950
Well there are plenty of Catholics with that kind of knowledge within the clergy and theology departments.

>>3348341

Some critics argue that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of the "rock" on which he would build his church. They point out that the word used for "rock" is the Greek 'petra'--meaning a large rock--whereas the name he gave to Simon was the Greek 'petros', meaning a small rock. The critics say that Jesus meant, essentially, that Peter was a little pebble, and Jesus was the boulder from which the church would rise up.

There are several problems with that interpretation. First of all, Jesus probably did not speak Greek in this exchange. It is very likely that he spoke Aramaic, and his words were later translated into Greek when the gospels were written. In Aramaic there is only one word that could be used for "rock": 'kephas'. In Aramaic, there would have been no distinction between Peter's name and the church's foundation.

>No because the epistles reiterate that good news in important variations.

What about the other 50 books?

>>3348341
>No because the epistles reiterate that good news in important variations.

If I wrote my own book retelling the story of Jesus, would this book then by extension become necessary for salvation? Should it be included in the Bible?

File: Solas.jpg (47KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 960x960px

>>3348352
The hierarchy of the early church is reflected in Protestant denominations, for example Presbyterians get their name from the Greek word for early church elders. Interestingly there is no equivalent to the Roman Cardinal in the early church. It really makes you think.

>>3348358
Regarding what the πέτρα is see: >>3348276

And the other books are contain useful information but are not necessary to be saved. I am entirely convinced that God is not condemning people to Hell because they didn't read Habakkuk.

File: richard.jpg (18KB, 402x471px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 402x471px

>>3348252
>That was the start of the Roman church-state/papacy, and the beginning of what would be a millennium of persecution of Christians that did not follow the teachings of the Pope.

Wait, assuming you are OP...earlier you replied to me that Orthodox are heretics themselves. >>3347482

So from the time the Empire moved to Byzantium neither the Bishop of Rome nor the Patriarchs of the East were leading a bona fide Christian Church. Where were this persecuted Christians praying then during what's close to 1200 years?

The Copts? The Nestorian Church?

>>3347322
>>3347334
I have a friend who has autism, like serious autism, and also depression. He's a generally very fucked up person, mentally speaking, and has had some family problems. Single mothers and all that. Hikikomori/herbivore man. Doesn't think there is a benevolent God or anything like it. What happens to him when he dies? Will there be paradise?

>>3348383
>What happens to him when he dies? Will there be paradise?
not without faith in Christ

>>3348374

You're just repeating yourself by saying rock means conviction. It doesn't make any sense in the context of Jesus changing Peters name.

>>3348383
>>3348392
let me reiterate
it depends how fucked up mentally we're talking. If hes still capable of making rational decisions, lets say, the capacity of a 13 year old, then he will still be held responsible for his sins

>>3348381
I made that post and am not OP.

I don't know enough about the Orthodox Church to declare them heretics or not.

I like how there are Christians trying to pull other Christians down in this thread

'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!'

'Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.'

File: Shiggy.png (320KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 500x375px

>>3348403
>papists
>christians

>>3348394
>It doesn't make any sense in the context of Jesus changing Peters name.
For you.

If Protestantism is true, there is no reason to say for sure that revelation is closed (since nowhere does Scripture say it is). And so the possibility remains that there may be future public revelation--like the Book of Mormon--leading to confusion and chaos among God's people.

The passage from the book of Revelation that warns people not to add or take away from the words of the book clearly refers only to that book (since at the time of its writing there was no single "book" of the whole Bible). Indeed, similar passages exist in Deuteronomy 4 and 13, yet of course, many books were added to the bible after Deuteronomy.

Jude 3 is a more interesting possibility, and in Catholic theology it is plausible to interpret the verse in a way that supports (but not proves) the belief that public revelation is closed. One problem for a protestant seeking to use it alone as a prooftext is the probable dating of Jude itself. Unless Jude were the very last book of the bible to be written, it makes no sense to claim that the inspired author intended his words to mean that no more books of the Bible would come after him. Scholars consider it likely that 2 Peter draws from Jude, which argues for an earlier dating of the letter, probably in the 50's or 60's. Another problem is that Jude's status as Scripture was not universally attested--Luther himself appealed to this fact in his prologue to the four New Testament books he rejected, which included Jude. Since the Church took centuries to accept Jude as Scripture, it is unlikely that one of its statements would have been used to prove the closure of public revelation.

>>3348392
>not without faith in Christ
I believe in god, but the mathematical god. The god of order, of balance, of beauty, precision and logic.
Is that enough?

>>3348420
no
you've still left the definition of order, balance, beauty etc in your own hands. your own reasoning is your god

File: hmm.gif (758KB, 468x236px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 468x236px

>>3348416
>no reason to say for sure that revelation is closed (since nowhere does Scripture say it is)

"I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." - The Book of Revelation

>>3348394
The context isn't Jesus changing Peter's name, it's Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Why do Protestants follow some traditions but reject others. How do they make the determination of what is correct? Here's some examples.

-The determination of which books belong in the bible.
-The sanctity of human life from the moment of conception.
-The belief that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.
-Switching of the Lord's day, the Sabbath, from Saturday to Sunday.
-The prohibition against polygamy, which Martin Luther approved: "I confess," Luther wrote, "that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the scriptur."

>>3348406
It is very hard to enter into the kingdom (live a sinless life) by yourself.

But with God, all things are possible.

On the cross, the atonement for sin was about to be made, and Jesus knew the faith of the thief.

File: mfw.gif (1MB, 256x172px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 256x172px

>>3348427
>How do they make the determination of what is correct?
Through the council of the Holy Spirit.

>>3348425

The passage from the book of Revelation that warns people not to add or take away from the words of the book clearly refers only to that book (since at the time of its writing there was no single "book" of the whole Bible). Indeed, similar passages exist in Deuteronomy 4 and 13, yet of course, many books were added to the bible after Deuteronomy.

Jude 3 is a more interesting possibility, and in Catholic theology it is plausible to interpret the verse in a way that supports (but not proves) the belief that public revelation is closed. One problem for a protestant seeking to use it alone as a prooftext is the probable dating of Jude itself. Unless Jude were the very last book of the bible to be written, it makes no sense to claim that the inspired author intended his words to mean that no more books of the Bible would come after him. Scholars consider it likely that 2 Peter draws from Jude, which argues for an earlier dating of the letter, probably in the 50's or 60's. Another problem is that Jude's status as Scripture was not universally attested--Luther himself appealed to this fact in his prologue to the four New Testament books he rejected, which included Jude. Since the Church took centuries to accept Jude as Scripture, it is unlikely that one of its statements would have been used to prove the closure of public revelation.

>>3348427
protestantism isn't anti-tradition
we just don't believe tradition should supersede scripture

File: yablewit.png (218KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 500x374px

>>3348432
*counsel

>>3347373
>I just like, totally decided man, so like, I'm christian and stuff now

You're no better than the edgy 'I'm totally buddist now duuuuudes stoners'

>>3348446
Are you his judge?

>>3348427
Finally a Catholic who admits the Catholic church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, and not the apostles in the Book of Acts, or Paul in his letters.

>>3348434

Catholics don't believe tradition supersedes scripture either.

File: >Romans.jpg (530KB, 469x5000px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 469x5000px

>>3348458
But Romans do.

>>3348457

Why would they deny? You're probably just talking to people who don't know any better.

>>3348430
'Those who are victorious will sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne.'

>>3348423
Guess I'll go to hell then. I don't see any reason to "choose" a single, particular religion, much less a particular sect (ie Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism), because all of their axioms are essentially "religious texts = truth", and religious texts have been empirically proven to be based on misconceptions. In other words, if the Universe has a creator, it makes no sense to assume they are a humanoid, much less operates within human ideas like good and evil. I like to say it makes as much sense to say god is a benevolent man with a beard as it makes sense to say god is a pink pony who punishes those born into the wrong religion with eternal anal horse rape.
I wish there was a paradise for me but there's not for me or anybody else.
On the other hand, in the end I'm glad that there is no god, because I would probably have to go through purgatory or even hell if there was One. It's much better to just relax and sleep forever on our graves.
The paperwork to get into Heaven alone would not be worth it.

>>3348461

No, I'm a Roman Catholic and I don't believe that.

>>3348427
>-The determination of which books belong in the bible.
Not up to us. If a book is God breathed, it belongs in the bible. Our job is just recognition.
>-The sanctity of human life from the moment of conception.
(You)
>-The belief that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.
This is in the bible
>-Switching of the Lord's day, the Sabbath, from Saturday to Sunday.
Saturday was never called the Lord's Day. Again, this one is in the bible.
>-The prohibition against polygamy, which Martin Luther approved: "I confess," Luther wrote, "that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the scriptur."
Bearing false witness is a sin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity#Reformation_period

File: Something is wrong.jpg (106KB, 708x720px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 708x720px

>>3348472
You call your priest "Father" do you not?

And when you were confirmed you knelt and kissed the bishop's ring correct?

>>3348477

How do you know if a book is "god breathed?"

>>3348470
what misconception are the gospels and Paul's epistles based on

>>3348463
>>3348477

This guy does it right here. "this one is in the bible."

They would deny because the Catholic Church changing God's law would be a huge issue and a terrible reason to go along with the change. They have to justify Sunday worship in the Bible itself.

>>3348458
then they shouldn't believe in salvation through their own works

>>3348480

Yes I call my priest father for the same reason Protestants often call their seminary-educated pastors and theologians "doctor," a word that literally means "master" or "teacher." despite Jesus saying in Matthew 23:8-10 to call no man teacher or "master." We do this because we recognize that Jesus was only warning his followers against inflating the pride of the Jewish leaders and elevating their authority above God's authority. He was not forbidding the existence of an spiritual fathers or teachers that he might call to humbly serve his church.

>>3347592
lmao bro, don't you ever call your dad your father? lmao, the reason they are called father is because they baptise people and allow them to be born in Christ dude lmao

"And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." Do you even read lmao

lmao, that's because he called every disciple and every person his brother, dummy

Martin Luther wrote in the Babylonian Captivity of the Church that the ministerial priesthood had no authority to exercise over the baptized. He said that we were all made equal under the New Covenant. But after the resurrection, Jesus tells Peter to “feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17) In doing so, he puts Peter in the role of a shepherd with authority over the sheep. In Mark 16:15, Jesus entrusts his apostles with the task of preaching the Gospel to the whole world. And St. Paul later tells the Thessalonians that they must respect these people who have this mission. He says to “respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work” 1 (Thessalonians 5:12-13).

Immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

>>3348502

What do you mean by salvation "through their own works?"

File: download (1).jpg (7KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 224x225px

>>3348505
>lmao bro
>lmao, the reason
>lmao thats because

>>3348508
To be saved, you must confess your sins, be baptized, attend mass

>>3348508
The thief on the cross will be in heaven, but he didn't perform a single Catholic sacrament.

File: God's Word.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>3348503
That is quite literally your tradition superseding scripture.

>>3348518

They're not absolutely necessary for a person to be saved if that's what you think we believe.

>>3347322
why have you not converted to the true religion of islam? Y do you worship prohpet jesus (pbuh) instead of Allah (swt)?

>>3348536
the qur'an is historically incorrect regard my Lord's death and resurrection, and it's theologically incorrect on our doctrine of the trinity

>>3348483
You must be born again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3AZJY-oq-0

>>3348530

Do you consider anything beyond a superficial reading of the text a "tradition?"

>>3348538
so you believe god has 3 personalities then?? if yes do you consider yourself a monotheist?

>>3348541

I'm not going to watch your 50 minute video. If you don't know the answer to my question that's fine but don't waste my time.

>>3348505
>lmao bro, don't you ever call your dad your father?
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Mark 7:13

File: Bonhoeffer.jpg (28KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 403x403px

>>3348536
How do Mohammadans argue that their 7th century depiction of Jesus is more historically accurate than the 1st century Gospels?

>>3348544
>All you need to say is simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Was Jesus superficial?

>>3348552

They use the same argument that protestants use against the Catholic Church. They say it was corrupted, and how could any protestant argue against this? There's no authority for them to appeal to.

>>3348548
3 separate but united personalities, sharing one unique nature
yes

>>3348549
I answered your question. If you actually want to know the answer, instead of just setting up arguments, I suggest you watch the video. To summarize it: A person believes the bible because the Holy Spirit grants it to them. There are no evidences by which wise men gain knowledge of God's word, it is only and always by the spiritual resurrection through the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

>>3348561
>They say it was corrupted, and how could any protestant argue against this?
With actual historical evidence? The exact same method which demonstrates the corruption of Roman traditions? Not by an appeal to the authority of an Argentine communist?

>>3348555

No I don't think Jesus was a superficial person. I'm not sure why you would ask this.

>>3348571

I've never seen any evidence that the Church was corrupted, just a lot of vague assertions.

File: Reliability of NT.jpg (1MB, 3508x2480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3508x2480px

>>3348561
Firstly Christians do not believe the scriptures themselves were forgeries or corruptions only that some of the Old Testament contained superfluous information and secondly Christians can appeal to reason that it is more likely documents originating closer to the events they describe are more trustworthy than those that were composed centuries after the fact.

>>3348584
Are you asserting that all Catholic doctrines are from God?

>>3348584
One good proof of corruption is the evolution of Mariology, for example, the concept of a bodily assumption is not mentioned once until the 6th century, and is repeatedly contradicted before that.

>>3348248
God Bless

>>3348585

You say it's obvious which ancient writings belong in the bible and which do not. But is it really so obvious? Throughout the first 3 centuries, while the bible was being formed the Church had to parse through 50 different Gospels and 22 Acts and slowly whittle down the numbers to eventually form the book we call the Bible. How do you know whether or not these books are accurate or should be included in the Bible?

Some books of the bible don't seem very "biblical." Ecclesiastes contains what seems to be a cynical rejection of the afterlife, the third letter of John doesn't mention the name of Jesus Christ, and the letter of Philemon doesn't teach any specific doctrine. The part of the book of Esther that protestants consider to be inspired scripture never even mentions God. Yet, all these writings are found in the bible, although writings that were popular in the early church, like the Didache or the letter of Clement (which was even read in church services) are not.

>>3348610

That's not a proof of anything. The Church doesn't make a declaration on anything until it becomes controversial, so it's very likely that Mariology mostly accepted until the 6th century when heretics started contradicting the teaching in enough numbers to cause problems. Do you have any reason to believe this is the case?

>>3348608

I didn't make any sort of assertion.

File: >Islam.jpg (226KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1000x1000px

>>3348621
Did you really think changing the subject from the Koran's retarded (in the literal sense) origins to the establishment of the Biblical canon was going to work?

Anyone else ever notice people copying your vocabulary? What's up with that?

>>3348636
Well do you believe that, or not?

>>3348633
>That's not a proof of anything
That's proof that it was unknown to both the apostles and the fathers.
>The Church doesn't make a declaration on anything until it becomes controversial
It was not an ecclesiastical declaration, nor was there a controversy surrounding Mary's fate.
>so it's very likely that Mariology mostly accepted until the 6th century
Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just a presupposition you have as a Roman Catholic?
>heretics started contradicting the teaching in enough numbers to cause problems
Again, there was no controversy, but also according to your own church it was not heresy to reject the assumption until November 1st, 1950.

File: 1449401086617.jpg (87KB, 314x414px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 314x414px

>>3348530
>literally called my father "father" for my entire life

File: 1291457687371.jpg (14KB, 276x271px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 276x271px

>>3348722

That's one ticket straight to hell, anon.

File: Turnip-Head.gif (998KB, 500x688px) Image search: [Google]

998KB, 500x688px

>>3348722
>>3348722
Start praying for mercy.

>>3348722
By "father" did you mean spiritual father, or biological father? Because if it's the latter your fine, feel free to continue.

File: ruh-roh.jpg (84KB, 499x349px)

84KB, 499x349px

>>3348774

I don't know, that passage seems pretty definitive and leaves no rooms for exceptions. I think anon is screwed, he should have come up for an alternative title for his father to call him by if he wanted to stay spiritually pure.

File: The Creation of Bait.png (148KB, 2500x1645px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 2500x1645px

>>3348785

>>3348722
You should always refer to your paternal parent as "Daddy"

File: Image 87.gif (2MB, 500x312px)

2MB, 500x312px

Well, that's just fine
Say it once, say it twice
Take a chance and roll the dice
Ride with the moon in the dead of night
Everybody scream, everybody scream
In our town of Halloween!
I am the clown with the tear-away face
Here in a flash and gone without a trace
I am the "who" when you call, "Who's there?"
I am the wind blowing through your hair
I am the shadow on the moon at night
Filling your dreams to the brim with fright

>>3348817
>>>/tv/

>>3348374
Cardinals are really just candidates to become bishop of Rome. It certainly was an innovation, in the sense it changed they way they picked the pope, though it does not give the cardinals religous power greater than a bishop, though I suppose in practice they had higher social rank and political power.

Of course I am not defending the idea the catholic hierarchy is identical to the early church, but from at least the 1st century it had a three tiered priest hood and the assumption that those bishops had the authority of the apostles via succession. The Catholic church is not the only group with this view, but the orthodox, the eastern church and even the Anglicans accept it

>>3348774
>>3348785
>>3348793
If the Bible is full of metaphors why can't we just come up with our own interpretations of everything and call it a day? If God asks us about it, we can just say 'your whole book isn't literal in the first place, so we did what we thought was right, maybe be more clear next time'.

File: Judgment.jpg (88KB, 604x378px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 604x378px

>>3348886
You are free to believe whatever you want but at the Final Judgment the question will be whether you really knew Jesus.

File: Image 57.gif (714KB, 354x230px) Image search: [Google]

714KB, 354x230px

>>3348819
I backed my car into a cop car the other day
Well, he just drove off - sometimes life's okay
I ran my mouth off a bit too much, ah what did I say?
Well, you just laughed it off and it was all okay
And we'll all float on okay
And we'll all float on okay
And we'll all float on okay
And we'll all float on anyway, well

>>3348908
I think God is like racism.
Only ever exists if you keep talking about it.

>>3348920
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZywCXsrN5n0

>>3348949
The Word existed before there was speech.

>>3348886
>I have literally no fucking idea what "metaphor" and "literal" mean

>why stick to an organised religion
>when we can instead make a 'work harder you poor fucks and give us money!!!!!!' cult

american 'christians' everyone

>>3348908
>dirty thoughts
Yeah
Because you can totally control your own thoughts
>inb4 you can
dick boobs anal sex vagina
oops youre going to hell now lmao

Are you Lutheran, Reformed, or Anglican?

>>3347482
>Baptist
Oh, so you're not a devout Protestant. Fuck off.

>>3349742
Two of those are muslim sects, are you sure you belong on /his/?

File: 234231.png (498KB, 473x504px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 473x504px

Friendly bump from a Catholic :)

What is your favourite book in the Bible?

God bless, anon.