Can I get a quick rundown of the DUP? Reddit says their a terrorist

File: Rightwingdeathsquads.jpg (1MB, 3816x1740px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3816x1740px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOnVirSpRi4

>>129228244
Fucking hell this timeline is dank as fuck

WTF IS THE DUP?????

QUICK RUNDOWN PLZ

>>129228244
he was based as fuck

>>129228109
Go back there

They are same as radical muslims...

>>129228109
>Reddit says
Stay there please we don't need your kind here

holy dude, a christian terrorist thats horrible.

Dont forget about all the muslims that have partys all terrorist, we all love that right?

We need strong knights time to get some trains

>>129228109
>Reddit says their a terrorist Christian fundamentalist party
I love them already folks!!!

Pls can a bong give us a rundown. No paddies pls.

>>129228109
Bumb

>>129228109
Bumb brrruuump

>>129228109
Come on buump

>>129228109
Bumb bump

>>129228109
Bbbbbump

>>129228109
Pls react

>>129228109
Bumb>>129228244

Stop the spam kut hoer

wtf i love the dup now

>>129228109
Bumb ing

>>129231894
Neen
Ik wil verdomme weten wat het is

>>129228244
I fucking like that dude!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ejga4kJUts

>>129228109
Manifesto:
>To reduce the rate of Corporation Tax to at least 12.5%;

>To freeze then cut or abolish the TV licence and reform the BBC;

>To cut the VAT rate for tourism businesses;

>To introduce a Trade Accelerator Plan including an enhanced range of initiatives to help support both new and existing exporters to explore new markets;

>To abolish Air Passenger Duty;

>To establish low tax, deregulated Freeports in economically underdeveloped parts of the UK

>To reduce the number of Government Departments and reduce the number of Special Advisors

>To introduce a Civil Service Voluntary Exit Scheme yielding annual savings of approximately £100 million;

>To create new trade, investment and innovation hubs in key global markets;

>To introduce alternative models of public sector service delivery such as increasing the use of social enterprises.

They're definitely socially conservative and nationalist. Love the UK with all their hearts. Used to have ties with terrorist organisations that killed IRA members and Catholics during the troubles. Ties have been cut. They're definitely very protestant too, but most of them aren't fundamentalists, just a few.

>>129229777
t. Paddyproxy

>>129228109
Rundown please. Are they /ourguys/?

>>129232110
And on immigration ?

File: 1485356626562.png (133KB, 1676x796px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1676x796px

Post Paisley memes

>>129232263
I think so actually. But the bongs must give us more info

>>129232263
Yes. They most certainly are.

I don't like theresa may, but i loath jeremy corbyn.
I think i have more in common with the dup than conservatives desu

>>129232263
They are the NI version of the BNP

>reddit told me
you have to go back

>>129232110
> cut taxes
music for ears

>>129232549
come home proud loyalist

>>129232110
Thats pretty based tbqh familia

DUPin' mental

>>129232110
Well shit. The Funding Fathers were Protestant "terrorists" as well.

>>129228244
this was Corbyn's plan all along.
This is 5 dimensional intergalactic Monopoly at this point

>>129228109
Will want to ban websites along with the Torys

Enjoy posting on 4chan while you can fellow Brits

File: IMG_5754.jpg (268KB, 690x520px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 690x520px

This is EXACTLY what varg was talking about when he said Christianity is anti European. Now we've got a northern Irish Protestant Christian extremist in government who hates Republic of Ireland Catholics, CHRISTIANITY DIVIDES EUROPEANS why are you celebrating this man? Why are you supporting Christianity? Stop it

>>129232912
I read a study that reckons up to like 70% of "Irish" Americans were in-fact related to ulster scots aka Northern Irish and not taigs.

As someone who lives here and has dealt with DUP members, they are all a bunch of backwards cunts.

>most are 70 years old and above

>responsible for gay marriage ban, abortion ban(even rape babies), gay people can't give blood etc.

>Young earth creationists

>Ties with, members part of etc, Loyalist Paramilitaries, targeting civilians, using fear as a tool to get their votes and money.

>Their Leader looks like Paul Merton, and is behind a £500m scandal that the taxpayer will cover.

>Funds campaigns with Saudi donations, and money earned via the numerous Loyalist Death Squads they're affiliated with, i'm not talking in the 70s and 80s, their ties to terrorist groups is ongoing.

They will lie, cheat, and steal to get their ways, their voters are all inbred cunts with subscriptions to The Sun and Daily Mail, all they do is drink Bucky and burn flegs and complain about their kulture.

So yeah, they are a christian fundamentalist cult with ties to terrorism, suits Theresa May perfectly

>>129233020
You guys are going to like like mongs pretty soon.

Especially if you only voted labour because of what the (((independent))) told you.

>>129233024
varg is a faggot

>>129233219
>Ties with, members part of etc, Loyalist Paramilitaries, targeting civilians, using fear as a tool to get their votes and money.
>responsible for gay marriage ban, abortion ban(even rape babies), gay people can't give blood etc.
>most are 70 years old and above

are these meant to be bad things?

>>129232419
Northern Ireland doesn't have any, so they probs wouldn't bring it up

>>129233219
Sounds like /your guys/

>>129232419
they want it lower

>>129228109
1. Kill the taigs
2. Gas the foriegners

>>129233092
Find another study, the mass migration during/after the Famine was a direct result of Ulster-Scots exporting goods to England, the Natives were left with nothing even though there was plenty of food, so they left, or died.

You already know this of course.

>>129233221
wat

>>129233504
Natives moved north lad

File: 2017-06-09_165819.jpg (128KB, 595x196px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 595x196px

Fuckin` based lads

>>129233588
You'll see yourself when were still posting on /pol/ by the end of the year.

>>129233219
back to pleddit faggot

>>129233688
Only the ones that wanted the superior Tayto

>>129233424
they still thought it important enough to make it a part of their manifesto

>The DUP sees no value in the attempts by some to keep re-running the referendum. Instead, we want to get on with the work to make it a success; to write our own laws; to deliver on the vision of a Global UK with new free trade deals; to control immigration; to deliver policies for farming and fishing shaped to our needs; to lift the burden of unnecessary regulation.

>>129231436
They're the political arm of a paramilitary unit that believes Ireland belongs to the British.

On the face of it they're non-degenerate, racist murderers that believe in the Red Hand of Ulster first and the Union Jack seond.

If you want more info on this entire shitshow go read about a famous Dutchman called William of Orange.

>>129233219
I'm starting to Love these folks

>>129233767
only if you go back to the 1600s where your beliefs belong

>>129233908
Just like Sinn Fein then?

File: 1487213089456.png (182KB, 402x434px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 402x434px

>>129233996
i wish i could new friend

>>129234086
I don't know how non-degenerate Sinn Fein are.

>>129228109
I dont understand this system at all. I finally got it through my burgerbrain what a hung parliament was, but then i read that May just "made a new government". What the fuck does that mean?! HOW DOES THIS FUCKING SYSTEM WORK?!

So are they for ending non-white immigration into the UK though, that's what I care about.

File: 1497010703834.jpg (20KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 200x200px

>>129233996
>when momentum shills get lost from reddit and can't find their way back

you're going to love it here, this aint no liberal hugbox kek

File: IMG_2574.png (298KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 640x1136px

>>129228745

So are they for ending non-white immigration into the UK though? That's what I care about.

>>129233321
>t. Anti European christcuck

File: IMG_6574.jpg (46KB, 750x250px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 750x250px

>>129234209

>>129234249
Nah, just an ex-shinner, not cool enough to be whatever you think I am

>>129234382
They dislike non whites so who knows, if not UK then they will for NI.

>>129233908
>William of Orange.
Good Ole Billy. He was a great guy. Setlling based calvinist in papist country and starting the parliamentary System in the newly made uk

>>129234481
Yeah that was a white pill, I saw that. But what about their opposition to a 'hard' Brexit though? Does that spell bad news for restricting non-white immigration?

File: Papist pedos.jpg (44KB, 650x245px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 650x245px

>>129234163
>Sinn Fein
Somewhat debased. Pedo smack lords.

>>129233760
That may be the case but you are still supporting two parties that want to regulate and limit the internet. While posting on here of all places

>>129233219

Good old Ulstermen.

File: Yourgirl.jpg (37KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 900x600px

>>129228109
The modern DUP isn't that bad, but they are a bit of a bunch of kooks. /pol/ getting over excited over who they used to be.
Anyone with half a mind can see why this is still very good for labour.
Copy pasted for relevance.
>Gone from a 40 point minimum loss to a 29 seat gain in 3 weeks.
>No blank check for may.
>Proper opposition to May's madness.
>DUP needs soft Brexit.
>May finishing the job of destroying the tories.

The DUP take the Tory Majority to 2 IF they all vote for Tory bills. They can tank ANYTHING controversial the tories plan unless they get their blow jobs. Not to mention her own back bench rebels will need to be appeased constantly.
It's a terrible position to be in, and Corbyn is lucky she is this insane desu.

>>129233996
Lurk a bit more my faggot
The plight we're in is because of exactly your kind of mindset

>>129233219
This is all true, fuck the DUP

>>129232419
if they find out what it is they will probably be against it

File: fost.png (690KB, 666x500px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 666x500px

damn amerifags don't know British politics
well say hello to a Arlene Foster joint with Theresa total domination for 5 years.

>>129235274
Correction, this is all true, dup ftw

>>129235192
Plight? it's not my plight.

I can have all the benefits of british citizenship while still retaining all the benefits of being an EU and Irish Citizen. The only thing that could make this more entertaining is when Willie Frazer gets involved.

The DUP are a laughing stock here, and now they have the spotlight.

>>129235785
a Tim Burton production

>>129235995
>EU and Irish Citizen.
>Irish
Now it makes sense

>>129236247
Are you sure it does? do you need more time?

>>129235126
>>>DUP needs soft Brexit.
I thought their demands for the coalition was a hard Brexit.

>>129232110
> Used to have ties with terrorist organisations that killed IRA members and Catholics during the troubles

Juusst when I was starting to like them.

File: 1qm8xd.jpg (58KB, 475x562px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 475x562px

>>129228109
The best time line.

File: IainPepe.jpg (14KB, 255x223px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 255x223px

>>129232525

>>129233219
>t. momentum

>>129236508
They campaigned on soft brexit. Northern Irish electorate voted to remain.
They want soft borders to maintain trade with the republic.

>>129233321
He's a nigger

>>129237073
So what is the strategy/stance of the gov moving forward? Remain in the single market but harder stance on immigration?

Could be worse I guess.

>>129237073
>DUP demands soft Brexit.
>Conservative back benchers demand hard brexit.
What they get is no brexit due to impossible concessions demanded by all sides.
It sucks if you wanted out hard and fast, our negotiations will be a joke.
She really should resign.

>>129235692
Kek
No muds in Ulster?

Northern Ireland sounds based af.

>>129236247
Calvinism is shit

Eat shit dumb puppet

>>129228745
Religious fundamentalist migrants who live in their own little communities and sometimes support terrorists. /pol/ loves that kind of thing now

>>129237731
>She really should resign.
Pls bongs give me the best possible timeline from now? What tory Leader, coalition etc?
No paddyposters pls

>>129237711
It's going to be difficult for them to do anything due to being pulled in all directions by smaller but now powerful interests within their party, other parties and the DUP.
She's fucking mental to carry on, but as a Labour supporter I'm really glad she is.
They'll kick her out at some point, before or after attempting/failing with Brexit is the real issue, their may need to be another election in the not too distant future, and in the meantime May will have made her party look ineffectual and more unpopular.

>>129237778
KYS dumb puppet

Calvinism is shit and degenerate

It is Islam tier

File: Andrew_Jackson.jpg (84KB, 613x503px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 613x503px

>>129232912
>Well shit. The Funding Fathers were

We have murals of Andrew Jackson and shit in hardline unionist areas

The original Jackson family home is now a museum here too.

>>129236451
>>129237970
Hi Papists

>>129233092
Yeah, most of the pre-potato "Irish" are actualy Ulster scots, and they are mostly borderlanders. In the book American Nations that nation is described as Greater Appalachia

>>129238075
Probably David Davis, and Bojo(though he may recognise the dangers and refuse again)depends how it goes down, and when she gets ousted.
If they were smart the backbenchers would tank the queens speech and force her to resign now. They probably won't have the balls for that though.

>>129238187
>FAP

>>129238276
Faith is instrumental to our salvation, but right after v. 8 & 9, v. 10 says that our works are indeed God's gift to us, but we play a part in that salvation. The passage in verse 9 that speaks to saved not through works, means works done on our own power. Works done on our own power take us back to our prior state, where we gave in to the nature under the power of lusts. Outside of Christ, we were unable to respond to Christ because we just gave in to our natural lusts, but with Christ's grace we were made alive. Absolutely no hint of an imputation at all, but through God's grace we are made holy, (2:5-7, 4:23-24), not declared holy. No forensic language at all. Thus, we are truly made righteous, and our cooperation plays a part in this. When he writes how we are saved he speaks of works right after speaking of faith, and nowhere says 'well in v. 8 where I say faith, I'm talking about salvation, in v. 10, I'm speaking only about sanctification.'Â I'm talking about the same thing. The 'we are his workmanship' in v. 10 is a part of God's gift of salvation.

In relation to maintaining justification, nowhere is there any idea of a salvation guaranteed. In fact, not only is the inheritance not guaranteed, but in the very same book, Paul writes that one is deceived if one thinks that sin can not cause us to be disinherited (Eph. 5:3-6). We are new creatures, made alive (Eph. 2:5, 8-10, 15, 4:23-24).

I received an email from a Protestant who saw my article on John 6, which emphasized that when Jesus speaks in John 6:48-58, he is speaking literally, about eating flesh and drinking blood: Here is my writing on the issue: My article on John 6. That points us to the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He disagreed with my assessment and pointed to some quotations from a fellow by the name of Michael Taylor, who argues that in John 6 the word for eating flesh, ‘trogo’, can be used metaphorically. In other words eating flesh just means believing in Jesus, and that is it. Catholic apologists have argued the word Trogo for eating flesh, has a meaning of chewing, a word that is always literal. The Catholic meaning is that word points us to eating his flesh and blood in Communion. I used that argument in that article. That word is used 4 times between John 6:54-58 and the argument is that during that time, both biblical and non-biblical history shows no usage of that word in a figurative sense. The word before, phago, which was used before John 6:54 for eating (6:51-53) can have the meaning both figurative and literal. But not in John 6:54-58, when the term ‘trogo’ is used. This for example is argued by Robert Sungenis here: Robert Sungenis on ‘trogo’ in John 6. In my article I put a challenge for anybody to show ‘trogo’ is used at anytime metaphorically. No one has answered but this is another way of answering that challenge. Here is how his argument proceeds:

>>129238540
Does Trogo Have to Be Used Metaphorically Elsewhere in Order to Be Metaphorical in John 6?

Roman Catholic apologists sometimes argue that because trogo is never unambiguously metaphorical in or outside of scripture, that it therefore cannot be metaphorical in John 6. Rome's argument, however, wrongly assumes that trogo can only be metaphorical in John 6if, and only if, it has already been used metaphorically elsewhere. In other words, Rome's apologists are requiring a precedent, and if there is none, then trogo must be literal rather than metaphorical.

But why should we concede that? By that logic, every proposed metaphorical use of a word would then require a precedent, which, when carried through to its logical conclusion, would require an infinite regress of precedents, which would make a first-time metaphorical use of any word impossible.

>>129238619
Well, it is not that there cannot be a precedent. It is that if this is a precedent, you should find that precedent used elsewhere sometime after that, either biblically or unbiblically, during or immediately after that time. I think it is reasonable to request to find some usage of it somewhere in the fashion that Mr. Taylor uses. The very examples he will give actually prove the Catholic apologist point. There is a huge difference between the examples that he gives as opposed to how it does not fit for ‘trogo’.

Let us apply the same logic to the uncontested metaphor of God as “rock.” We'll work canonically backwards to illustrate our point: In Isaiah 44:8, “rock” can be safely said to be metaphorical because it is already metaphorical in Psalm 18:31. And "rock" can be metaphorical in Psalm 18:31 because it is already metaphorical in 2 Samuel 22:32, which in turn is justified by the precedent we find in Deuteronomy 32:4, where Moses calls God a "Rock" for the first time.

But how could Moses call God "Rock” in the first place unless he already had access to a metaphorical precedent? The answer, of course, is that he does not need a precedent in order to use a word metaphorically, and therefore neither does Jesus or John with respect to trogo. Rome's apologists are being arbitrary here in their requirement for a precedent. They simply do not allow for the possibility that trogo in John 6 may be the first use of this word in a metaphorical sense. In other words, contextual rather than non-contextual usage is the primary criterion for determining whether or not trogo is metaphorical in John 6. The attempt to appeal to outside usage is really a smokescreen—and a poor one at that.

>>129233092
http://emerald.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html

"Greater Appalachia" Plenty in NH too, the "live free or die" mentaility comes from them.

Also, read this for an overview:

http://takimag.com/article/a_brief_history_of_the_redneck_joe_bob_briggs

>>129238687
The usage of the term ‘Rome’ indicates that is only the Roman Catholic Church that argues for the reality of the Eucharist. Christians from the beginning believed in the reality of the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The only reason why he says that it is a metaphor, is because he has to label it as a metaphor in order to explain away the reality of Jesus words.

Now, I’ll deal with his example of Rock being a metaphor, and why did Moses use Rock as a metaphor, since Moses did, so can Jesus, in his theory. The problem with that is the rest of the Bible, the author goes to quoting God as Rock elsewhere. Sure there can be a precedent, and it can even be expanded. Those other quotes in the Psalms and second Samuel exactly prove the point. In fact it is even expanded in Isaiah, for example where the Rock is used of Abraham and Sarah, where Isaiah says ’look to the Rock’ he expands it to Abraham and Sarah, Isa 51:1-2. Paul uses the Rock metaphor in 1 Cor. 10:4 as pointing to God as well, or Jesus. That Old Testament usage lays the precedent for Jesus naming Peter ‘Rock’, Kephas in Aramaic. And it is known through Rabbinic literature in addition to the Bible that God is a rock. However, no such thing applies to ‘Trogo’. Rock is used elsewhere metaphorically.

>>129238152
I drink your tears Papists. Calvinists are prosperous and happy. You are it all over the world.

Deus Vult!

>>129238918
Wrong. Secularism made the wealth happen

This is what happens when you are Calvinist

A. General

"In the preface to the Institutes he admitted the right of the government to put heretics to death . . . He thought that Christians should hate the enemies of God . . . Those who defended heretics . . . should be equally punished." (115:178)

During Calvin's reign in Geneva, between 1542 and 1546, "58 persons were put to death for heresy." (122:473)

"While he did not directly recommend the use of the death penalty for blasphemy, he defended its use among the Jews." (123:102)

In defense of stoning false prophets, Calvin observes:

"The father should not spare his son . . . nor the husband his own wife. If he has some friend who is as dear to him as his own life, let him put him to death." (123:107/59)

He talks of the execution of Catholics, but, like Luther, did not readily attempt to act on his rhetoric:

"Persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist . . . deserve to be repressed by the sword." (123:96/60)

B. James Gruet

In January, 1547 in Calvin's Geneva, one James Gruet, a kind of free-thinker of dubious morals, was alleged to have posted a note which implied that Calvin should leave the city:

"He was at once arrested and a house to house search made for his accomplices. This method failed to reveal anything except that Gruet had written on one of Calvin's tracts the words 'all rubbish.' The judges put him to the rack twice a day, morning and evening, for a whole month . . . He was sentenced to death for blasphemy and beheaded on July 26, 1547 . . . Evangelical freedom had now arrived at the point where its champions took a man's life . . . merely for writing a lampoon!" (114:176/61)

>>129239092
Durant gives further detail:

"Half dead, he was tied to a stake, his feet were nailed to it, and his head was cut off." (122:479)

C. Comparet Brothers

In May 1555, a drunken riot occurred, precipitated by a group which objected to the excess of foreign refugees in Geneva. Dissidents of Calvin were termed "Libertines."

"The brothers Comparet, two humble boatmen, were executed and pieces of their dismembered bodies nailed on the city gates." (46:192)

"The Comparet brothers, with Calvin's approval, were tortured . . . Under the rack they said the riot had . . . been premeditated, but denied this again before their execution. A number, including Francois Berthelier, were beheaded . . . Several others were banished, and the wives of the condemned were likewise driven from the city." (123:48)

"All the other leaders of the party took flight and were sentenced to death in their absence." (46:192)

>>129237985
t. newfag

pol has been consistent all it's life without any exception

pol has and always will support the candidate who has the best memes and who is the most memeable.

>>129239156
FUCK Kevin Durant

>>129238889
u r a fagit and the pope is a pedo

File: graham-hill-indianapolis.jpg (32KB, 300x359px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x359px

>>129233996

>>129233024
Varg is a Muslim apologist faggot.

>>129239254
>>129239261
is stigma, however, is shared by many other "reformers", who commended this atrocious vendetta:

"Melanchthon, in a letter to Calvin and Bullinger, gave 'thanks to the Son of God' . . . and called the burning 'a pious and memorable example to all posterity.' Bucer declared from his pulpit in Strasbourg that Servetus had deserved to be disemboweled and torn to pieces. Bullinger, generally humane, agreed that civil magistrates must punish blasphemy with death." (122:484)

In 1554 Calvin wrote the treatise Against the Errors of Servetus, in which he tried to justify his cruel action:

"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face." (46:191)

This was Calvin's attitude towards the punishment and execution of heretics. In what way, I submit, is he morally any better than those who committed atrocities by means of the Inquisition?

>>129238416
>>129238540
>>129238619
Nice copypaste

>>129238889
Trogo is never used metaphorically anywhere else in the Bible. Or anywhere else outside the Bible. After Moses uses the word Rock, it is verified through usage immediately after him and elsewhere. In reference to ‘trogo’ which is specifically about chewing, eating, it was about really physically eating. Now, in the New Testament the other uses of ‘trogo’ are Jn 13:18, and Matthew 24:38. The author ignores the fact that the people in Noah’s day were eating not metaphorically up to the point of the flood in Matthew 24:38. Judas really ate, ’trogo’ at the meal, (Jn 13:18) not figuratively. All the literature at the time, even outside the Bible, used Trogo in a literal sense. Then he disingenuously ignores the fact that eating flesh and drinking blood when taken figuratively always means the exact opposite of believing, but fighting as an enemy. Here is the way ‘eating flesh’ is used in the Old Testament:

>>129239413
Psalm 27:2 When the wicked came against me to eat up my flesh, my enemies and foes, they stumbled and fell.

Micah 3:1-4 - 1 and I said: hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Is it not for you to know justice? 2 you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; 3 who eat the flesh of my people , and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron. 4 then they will cry to the Lord, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have made their deeds evil.

Isaiah 9:18-20 - 18 for wickedness burns like a fire, it consumes briers and thorns; it kindles the thickets of the forest, and they roll upward in a column of smoke. 19 through the wrath of the lord of hosts the land is burned, and the people are like fuel for the fire; no man spares his brother. 20 they snatch on the right, but are still hungry, and they devour on the left, but are not satisfied; each devours his neighbor's flesh

How can one ignore the way that it is used? The biblical usage of that term ‘eating’ flesh, has the exact opposite meaning of believing. Treat the person as an enemy. Devouring flesh, eating up enemies obviously is not the way that we attain eternal life, according to Jesus, but that is the normal way of talking about eating flesh would apply metaphorically. Why would we ignore that?

>>129239410
Calvinism BTFO

Sola Fide is shit

>>129228109
Ian Paisley, based mu' fuk'.

>>129239092
>Secularism made the wealth
Perhaps why the ussr was so wealthy

>>129233219
t. britcuck

This is literally better than i could have EVER imagined.

>>129239551
There is no doubt that figurative “eating flesh” is used negatively, but the conclusion that it can never be used in a positive sense is absurd. Depending on the context, the same figure is often used to express opposites. For things that signify now one thing and now another…They signify contraries, for example, when they are used metaphorically at one time in a good sense, at another in a bad…Bread is used in a good sense, ‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven;’ in a bad, ‘Bread eaten in secret is pleasant.’ And so in a great many other case” We know that eating flesh could mean a physical injury or a false accusation by looking at the context in which it is used. Similarly, if we examine the context of John 6, it is hard to miss Jesus’ explanation that eating flesh and drinking blood should be understood spiritually as coming and believing on Him.

Yes, he talked earlier in John 6, and believing but starting in v. 48 he goes on to another issue. He is not just repeating what he said earlier. The problem is that when Jesus speaks, the context is not figurative, and is not understood figuratively.


>>129239656
>secularism is NOT communism

>>129239754
John 6: 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever." 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'naum

>>129239814
You see he says it in John 6:51 his statement that the bread is his flesh. The Jews said for sure he is talking literally, and take him literally, when they said how can this man give us his flesh to eat? This was the perfect time to correct them taking him literally. They know what he means. He explicates it further by driving home the point by then using the word ‘Trogo’. The word Phago which he had used previously (51-53) can be taken both ways, literally and metaphorically, he does not, use any further. He explains to them that he is talking unambiguously physically. If it was a metaphor he would have explained it right away. It is disingenuous to ignore the fact that eating flesh and drinking metaphorically is bad. And says ‘well, he means it metaphorically now’. The only reason he is making that argument is he’ll use anything to deprive Jesus’ words of their meaning. Jesus is making it plain as day. Unlike Rock which is used as a metaphor for God both within and outside the Bible. Sure, the Rock that Moses wrote about had no precedent, but that precedent led to many other uses of it as a metaphor for God after that time. And Rock was never meant a metaphor for Satan, which is the exact opposite meaning. There is no parallel to the Rock because ‘trogo’ was not used metaphorically either within the New Testament or outside the New Testament. The Rock was used metaphorically for God. Then Jesus said unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life. So, Jesus had his chance to say he is talking figuratively. He did not. He could have said ` I am just repeating what I said earlier ‘(vs. 35-47 where he talks about the importance of believing in him)’. He did not. Mr. Taylor does not take into account in his theory that the Jews who were questioning him gave Jesus the opportunity to say he was speaking metaphorically but Jesus did not take that option.

>>129233219
Hey fucko, the culture is the only thing that matters.

>>129239879
He explicates it even more when he repeats the usage of the word ‘trogo’. Later, when he says ‘this is My Body,’ this is when this teaching becomes a reality. But you will also note that John is the only gospel writer who even though Jesus does a lot of teaching in the upper room, in John 13-17, he is the only gospel writer who does not record the institution of the sacrament of giving his flesh and blood. Why not? Because John knew that the explication on the Eucharist has already been given in John 6.

Let’s go back to the discourse of John 6:51-58. He says again my flesh is food indeed, my blood is drink indeed (or true food and true drink in v. 55). He is driving hard the point that he’s talking about the reality of it. Again, besides driving home the point that this is literal, he’s making it as plain as one can. Then he points back to the manna that had been given in the Old Testament. God gave the people of Israel physical manna, not metaphorical manna. Again, he had the perfect time to say he’s speaking metaphorically but he speaks of the manna which was physical indeed. It was literal manna, not metaphorical manna. Now, look at what follows: John 6:60-67

>>129239743
yep, you limeys never disapoint

>>129239617
>Works for redemption
>No corrupt church
Pick

>>129240022
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?”

>>129240096
>being puppet
>think God cause child rapist to rape

>>129236564
oy vey ave oy vey ave!

>>129240115
Notice that they murmured after this teaching a little like the Israelites who murmured about the manna God had given in the Old Testament. He asks do you take offense at it? The problem with the aforementioned Protestant idea is that Jesus always explained to the disciples what he meant. In fact, right after explaining that some are hardened of heart in his sayings (Mt. 13:13-15) he says to his disciples: Matthew 13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear." Jesus always explained to the disciples what he meant. Mark 4:34 "But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples." Nowhere in John 6 did Jesus say, "don't take me literally, folks". Speaking of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and people understanding him literally, the disciples took him literally as well (v. 60). According to the Bible Jesus always explained to the disciples the meaning of his teachings. The context of John 6:51-67 shows that not only the Jews, but the disciples took him literally, and they left because of this understanding. In fact Jesus knew how they understood, did not correct their understanding, and let them leave him. This shows the literalness of his teaching that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. There is no parallel elsewhere where Jesus let his disciples leave him without explaining what he really meant.

>>129233024
But the pagan tribes fought like fuck against each other, that's partly why they were so easy to conquer, and the pagan Romans hired the Huns to massacre 20,000 Burgundians, so what the fuck is he talking about? Europe would be islamic now if not for Christians, the pagans would have fought each other and then sold the losers into the slave trade.

>>129240278
What about the fact that later Jesus says my words are spirit and life? Does that not mean symbolic? In fact there is not one time in the bible where spirit means symbolic. God is Spirit, he obviously is real and not symbolic. Surrounding vv. 6:61-65, Jesus says that the Son of Man will ascend into heaven (vs. 62). This is right before the words "My words are Spirit and Life". Do those Protestants who reject the Real Presence hold that Jesus symbolically or figuratively rose to heaven after his death? Or do they believe, with Catholics, that he literally bodily rose from the dead, not only by his power, (Jn 2:18), but by the power of the Spirit was made alive (1 Peter 3:18). How many bible believing Protestants believe that Jesus did not literally ascend into heaven? So they seem to take that part of the saying literally and the next verse make a symbol, just to avoid the overtones of Jesus' actual words. Honest exegesis requires consistency.

Notice back in vv. 51-52, it talks of him giving his flesh for the life of the world. This bread that he gives is flesh. If one understands his flesh to be symbolic, he does away with that idea by saying that the same flesh will be given up on the cross. How many Protestants do not believe that Jesus literally gave his flesh on the cross? This flesh will be given to eat. If the flesh we eat for eternal life is meant in only a "figurative way" or "spiritually speaking", then so is the flesh of the crucifixion! Jesus equates the two. Either they are both literal, or they are both figurative. This metaphorical meaning destroys many more Christian doctrines than just the Eucharist.

>>129239754
>Secularism is not free Market
Secularism was a big part of communism ergo it should have been wealthy

>>129240353
Let’s go back to Mr. Taylor’s theory. We must remember Jesus is speaking specifically to people who are not privy to Mr. Taylor’s theory that eating flesh is figurative. John heard Jesus’ words and when he wrote it in Greek, he decided to write vs. 54-58, knowing that when he writes ‘trogo ’ it has always meant literal. But the hearers of these words out of Jesus’ mouth, since these were the ones who were to sort those words out, were not privy to Mr. Taylor’s academic theory. To hold to Taylor’s theory, they must think ‘hey I know Jesus is saying something which always means literal, and the way that he emphasizes everything after we asked him about it, he again emphasizes the literalness, and I know that people left him after him saying it was literal, but hey, there is this theory that Jesus means it in a figurative sense. It in fact doesn’t matter that no one ever used this language this way in a positive manner, before, during, or after this time, but he must be using it in a figurative way here.’ There is no way that any of the hearers of Jesus words, or the late first century, early second century readers of this gospel, would have been privy to Mr. Taylor’s theory. This is a nice academic theory, but that theory has no basis where anybody would have understood it that way. Why should we presume this theory when everything surrounding that context speaks against it?

Finally, another way to find out, is someone who studied under John. His name is Ignatius of Antioch. John lived approximately to 99 AD or so. Ignatius of Antioch was one of his disciples. He went to his death for his faith in Jesus Christ in 110 AD or so. What did he say in reference to the Eucharist? Is it merely symbolic, doesn’t really do much, this is merely bread and wine (or grape juice nowadays, btw making a mockery of what Jesus did)? Nope, Ignatius of Antioch writes the following:

>>129240388
>separation of church and state is communism
>enlightenment logic is communism

>>129240412
Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." "Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ." -"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D

Notice the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. Catholic indeed. It is as though he knows how to interpret John 6 the Catholic way. The Eucharist is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.

>>129233024
I fucking hate you Varg fags.

>>129240553
John 6:53-55

53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

The Eucharist helps one to live forever. He gives grace through that sacrament that he promised in John 6. The food is true drink, not symbolic drink. It gives us grace to help us attain eternal life.

Next, let us look at St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book five, sections two and three, 175 AD to 185 AD.

2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins. Colossians 1:14 And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

>>129240204
Doesn't understand inkeer through Faith. Don't know English for inkeer

>>129240617
3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him? — even as the blessed Pauldeclares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.Ephesians 5:30 He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones— that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,

>>129233996
Did you mean to go to the genderless toilet and wandered in here by mistake?

>>129228745

They're proof that mass immigration is a bad idea.

>>129240650
>God make Adam sin
>blame Adam for it
Calvinism

>>129240711
1 Corinthians 15:53 because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness, 2 Corinthians 12:3 in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality, that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves? http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103502.htmSt. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, chapters II & III

>>129240494
>enlightenment logic is secularism
>Protestants not inventing church and State.
Toppest kek

>>129240885
You may ask why I’m quoting Ireneaus when he doesn’t quote John 6 directly? And why do I quote so much of this passage? Well, I quote Ireneaus because he was a disciple under the martyr Polycarp, who also knew the apostle John. He is also an early Greek Church Father who understood the Early Church teachings on the Eucharist. So he was not far removed from the apostle John, and his explaining of Jesus’ teachings. Also, because Catholics are often accused of quoting Irenaeus out of context in this passage, I give the whole context. So you can see what he means. Also, because the interpretation of John 6, where it is the Eucharist and it is life-giving, provides grace to those who partake of that Eucharist, is directly reflected in St. Ireneaus’ teaching. When we first look in chapter 2, he does quote 1 Cor. 10:16 which shows he believes that communion, is His Body, and His Blood. He takes it literally without further explanation. He is battling the Gnostics who deny the incarnation. Jesus did really come in the flesh and the best way to show the incarnation is in our participation in his real Body, and his real Blood. It is heretical to deny his incarnation and his real Body and Blood. Notice in the end of chapter two, he says ‘it gives increase to our bodies’. This exactly highlights that grace is given to our bodies through that participation in his Body and Blood. This exactly reflects that the grace of the Eucharist is life giving that Jesus himself talks about in John 6:51-58.

>>129228244

Quintessentially British.

>>129240959
Separation of church and state was invented in the Enlightenment period dumbass

America is an example of it

The founding fathers were deistic by and large

>>129240964
Then in chapter 3 he says manufactured bread with the Word of God (i.e. consecration, a recitation of ‘This is My Body’), becomes in that prayer the Body and Blood of Christ. That is the meaning of transubstantiation. We become nourished by his Body and Blood of Christ. I.E. we are given grace through the reception of his Body and Blood. And the effect of eating this flesh and blood is eternal life. This exactly reflects that eating this Body & Blood is grace providing.

In sum, the only reasonable way that John 6 can be understood, the eating of Jesus’ flesh, is the way that the Catholic Church interprets. Jesus changes language beginning in v. 48 where he goes to speak in a literal fashion about being the bread of life. He goes on to say that as bread of life he gives us his flesh to eat. The Jews understood him as saying how can he give us his flesh to eat. He goes on starting in v. 54 through v. 58, to use a word that ‘eat’ ‘trogo’ has always been understood to be literal. John has Jesus talking in language that has historically meant chewing, a real physical eating. Mr. Taylor’s theory is that it is ok that ‘trogo’ has never meant to be taken metaphorically. His showing that Rock was an equivalent to ‘trogo’ was shown to be false because the example of ‘Rock’ has plenty of usage elsewhere after Moses set a precedent. Rock represents God in both biblical and non-biblical usage. However, not only was ‘trogo’ never used before Jesus used the term in a way that was metaphorically positive, nowhere else after that was it used in such a way. One cannot disregard the fact that the way ‘eat flesh’ was used metaphorically is negative.

>>129241123
. It cannot reasonably be interpreted in a way that is metaphorical. John, in his relaying of Jesus words in John 6:54-58 obviously was aware that Jesus answer to his questioners was literal. Jesus reiterated the literalness in an even stronger fashion that he was giving his real flesh and blood. It is true food. To make the point even further he uses a word of literally chewing (trogo). Not metaphorically eating flesh and blood. Even in vs. 57 & 58 he talks about how much better it was than the manna that God gave the Israelites, which was physical. He uses language which reiterates that he was speaking physically. As we showed from Scripture Jesus always explained to the disciples if there was any misunderstanding. And no disciple said ‘now I get it, he’s being metaphorical now.’ If they didn’t believe the literalness of it, Jesus had no problem in letting them go. Peter had trouble understanding it, but he said ’you are the Holy One to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.‘ This teaching was tough but Peter and the other apostles who stayed there accepted the teaching. Because Jesus laid out the Eucharistic teaching here, that is why there was no recording of any questioning in the other gospels when Jesus proclaimed ‘This is My Body.’ The only way that anybody can come to the conclusion that it is not literal, is if one comes with a preset tradition against the Catholic teaching, that denies the validity of Jesus’ own words. This is a life-giving grace, which helps believers to attain eternal life

>>129235126
that was a good rundown

>>129241266
VIII. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP

1. Overview

The early Protestants were not the champions of free speech and freedom of the press, either, as we are led to believe, any more than they were for freedom of religion or assembly - not by a long shot. Suppression of the Mass and forced Church attendance by civil law are examples of this intolerance of freedom of thought and action, which we previously examined. Neither was Catholic and sectarian literature to be suffered:

"With isolated exceptions . . . we find everywhere the opinions which are exactly in harmony wlth those of the territorial prince of the day, striving their utmost to suppress all differing views. The theory of the absolute Church authority of the secular powers was in itself enough to make a system of tolerance impossible on the Protestant side...From the very first religious life among the Protestants was influenced by the hopeless contradiction that on the one hand Luther imposed it as a sacred duty on every individual, in all matters of faith, to set aside every authority, above all that of the Church, and to follow only his own judgment, while on the other hand the reformed theologians gave the secular princes power over the religion of their land and subjects . . . 'Luther never attempted to solve this contradiction. In practice he was content that the princes should have supreme control over religion, doctrine and Church, and that it was their right and their duty to suppress every religious creed which differed from their own.' (64)" (111;v.14:230-31)

"The Corpus doctrinae of Melanchthon had passed muster for a long time in Saxony, but on the occasion of the crypto-Calvinistic controversies the Elector Augustus forbade the work being printed . . .; the press control, which Melanchthon had advocated against others, now hit him himself." (111;v.14:506)

Here is another

>>129240494
And yes in communism Faith had No influence on society which is the definition of secularism. Clearly wealth is about markets and work ethos.

>>129236508
They demanded and campaigned for a hard brexit, but idiots think that wanting an open border with ireland is soft brexit despite it being a seperate agreement that weve had despite the EU and not because of it, especially since neither country is in the EU. Ignore this buffoon >>129237073

>>129241333
"In the Protestant towns numbers of preachers bestirred themselves zealously with the help of the municipal authorities to suppress the writings of all opposing parties. 'When first Luther began to write books, it was said,' so Frederick Staphylus recalled to mind (1560), 'that it would be contrary to Christian freedom if the Christian folk and the common people were not allowed to read all sorts of books. Now, however . . . the Lutherans themselves are . . . forbidding the purchase and reading of the books of their opponents, and of apostate members and sects.'" (111;v.14:506-7)

"The Protestant princes . . . loved and encouraged the censorship because, with its help, they could suppress the well-merited complaint against their robbery of Church property, or other self-interested deeds, or even criminal acts." (111;v.14:507)

"Violation of the orders of the censorship was everywhere to be severely punished." (111;v.14:234)

Funny this is also done by the USSR

>>129241418
>especially since neither country is in the EU.

I meant in schengen

>>129241333
3. Luther and Melanchthon Suppress Swiss and Anabaptist Books

"When the controversy on the Lord's Supper was started at Wittenberg, the utmost precautions were taken to suppress the writings of the Swiss Reformed theologians and of the German preachers who shared the latter's views. At the instigation of Luther and Melanchthon there was issued, in 1528, by the Elector John of Saxony, an edict to the following effect:

" 'Books and pamphlets (of the Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, etc.) must not be allowed to be bought or sold or read . . . also those who are aware of such breaches of the orders laid down herein, and do not give information, shall be punished by loss of life and property.'" (111;v.14:232-3/65)

"Melanchthon demanded in the most severe and comprehensive manner the censure and suppression of all books that were hindering to Lutheran teaching (66). The writings of Zwingli and the Zwinglians were placed formally on the Index at Wittenberg." (111;v.14:504)
4. Protestant Universities

"Moreover, antagonism had also grown up among the Protestant universities, and one reproached the other with being the fosterer and begetter of false doctrine . . . Wittenberg itself, but lately regarded as the birthplace of a new revelation and of the newly awakened Church of Christ, in 1567 was declared to be a 'stinking cesspool of the devil.'" (111;v.14:231-2)

Wow this is so like the Enlightenment thinkers

File: 1494124183991.jpg (26KB, 393x255px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 393x255px

>>129233996
I know it´s late but I couldn´t resist

>>129232419

>implying anyone would willingly move to Northern Ireland

It's one of the most deprived regions of northern Europe, anon.

http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

That's before you consider the fact that one million degenerate protestant immigrant muh heritagefags live there.

>>129241545


IX. AFTERWORD

1. Henry Hallam (P)

"Persecution is the deadly original sin of the Reformed churches, that which cools every honest man's zeal for their cause in proportion as his reading becomes extensive." (50:297/67)
2. Thomas Babington Macaulay (P)

"Protestant intolerance, despotism in an upstart sect, infallibility claimed by guides who acknowledge that they had passed the greater part of their lives in error . . . these things could not long be borne . . . It required no great sagacity to perceive the inconsistency and dishonesty of men who, dissenting from almost all Christendom, would suffer none to dissent from themselves, who demanded freedom of conscience, yet refused to grant it . . . who urged reason against the authority of one opponent, and authority against the reason of another." (50:297-8/68)

>>129241051
It was invented by geweld and implemented by protestants in the colonies and the Dutch republic. True, it's part of the enlightenment but that doesn't say they wanted religion to have No influence in society, just not State enforced.

File: The_British_Empire_Anachronous.png (512KB, 2753x1400px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 2753x1400px

>>129233996
and when your empire still existed

>>129241651
>geweld
Greeks

>>129241651
Actually it wasn't

This is why Reformed Calvinists persecuted Arminus and his followers

File: 1497029922228.jpg (352KB, 1151x900px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1151x900px

>>129228244

File: 1494734568069.jpg (41KB, 464x261px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 464x261px

>>129233376
Sounds breddy good to me, desu

>>129241739
Greeks aren't Proddies retard

>>129241611
The people are absolutely lovely, though. There are some extremely poor parts of it but it's a pleasant place.

>>129241774
Explain why Sola Fide contradict the Bible

>>129241896
Why did Jesus come? What was his purpose? He explains it in Titus 2:11-14:

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Notice, he gives the reason for our salvation to live righteously. That is for our salvation. His purpose is not to just pretend that we are innocent even though we sin all the time and can't help ourselves, but according to Paul redeem us and purify for himself people who are zealous for good deeds, and this is in the context of salvation. He did his part, now it is the part of Christians to live it out. Now, you teach a doctrine of demons if you think that sins can not separate one from God. BTW, just because it is a gift given from the Father, it does not mean it is 'earning' salvation.

>>129233908

It's funny because the Red Hand of Ulster is an unequivocally Irish thing, rooted in the Fenian Cycle of Irish mythology.

That's right, the loyalists are so batshit stupid they don't realise they're using a Fenian symbol to represent themselves.

>>129240746
This

>>129242030
You say it is a slap in Jesus’ face if we must obey to keep the commandments. Well, Jesus himself said the following:

Mt. 19:16-17 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Rev. 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

One can enter in the gates, and one has a right, only if one keeps the commandments. Now, I take Jesus at his word. Do you?

Paul says in Rom. 8:17, after declaring one who is in Christ a son, he says:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Notice it is that we are heirs of God (inherit salvation) provided we suffer with him. I will take Paul's words over your words.

>>129232110
As a civil servant, should I be worried?

>>129242098
John notes, 1 Jn. 1:7-9

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. God did not make filthy rags, but through his grace, he truly cleanses us from righteousness on an ongoing bases. He also makes it mandatory that we keep the commandments for eternal life, 1 Jn. 2:3-5

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

You say you have to do nothing, the Bible says that if you don't keep the commandments, you are a liar. I will take Scripture over your words

Heb. 10:26-29

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Do I believe what that says or what you say?

>>129242249
2 Pet. 2:20-21

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

Do I believe what that says or what you say?

I believe it is a warped theology that can ignore the many Scriptures that are given. Look at what Paul says 1 Cor. 6:9-18:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

>>129241051
Franklin and Jefferson were deïst. Who more? The whole Nation was protestant

>>129232110
Wow, they're actually somewhat libertarian

File: 1484154669087.jpg (248KB, 1024x663px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1024x663px

>>129232110
they sound like /ourguys/

File: 958571.png (32KB, 500x447px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x447px

>>129233996

>>129241687

>>129242331
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faiths_of_the_Founding_Fathers

>>129242539
This is DUP

3. Luther and Melanchthon Suppress Swiss and Anabaptist Books

"When the controversy on the Lord's Supper was started at Wittenberg, the utmost precautions were taken to suppress the writings of the Swiss Reformed theologians and of the German preachers who shared the latter's views. At the instigation of Luther and Melanchthon there was issued, in 1528, by the Elector John of Saxony, an edict to the following effect:

" 'Books and pamphlets (of the Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, etc.) must not be allowed to be bought or sold or read . . . also those who are aware of such breaches of the orders laid down herein, and do not give information, shall be punished by loss of life and property.'" (111;v.14:232-3/65)

"Melanchthon demanded in the most severe and comprehensive manner the censure and suppression of all books that were hindering to Lutheran teaching (66). The writings of Zwingli and the Zwinglians were placed formally on the Index at Wittenberg." (111;v.14:504)
4. Protestant Universities

"Moreover, antagonism had also grown up among the Protestant universities, and one reproached the other with being the fosterer and begetter of false doctrine . . . Wittenberg itself, but lately regarded as the birthplace of a new revelation and of the newly awakened Church of Christ, in 1567 was declared to be a 'stinking cesspool of the devil.'" (111;v.14:231-2)
5. Various Protestant Cities and Areas

"At Strassburg Catholic writings were suppressed as early as 1524 . . . The Council at Frankfort-on-the-Main exercised . . . strict censorship . . . At Rostock, in 1532, the printer of the Brethren of the Common Life was sent to prison, because he had used his printing press to the disadvantage of Protestantism." (111;v.14:502)

"Wherever the prince, according to old Byzantine fashion, thought himself a theologian, he managed the censorship in person." (111;v.14:233)

>>129241418
>>129241495
So wrong it hurts.

>Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, is keen to avoid a hard border with Ireland and has spoken against a "hard Brexit."

>She has said: “No-one wants to see a ‘hard’ Brexit, what we want to see is a workable plan to leave the European Union, and that’s what the national vote was about – therefore we need to get on with that.

>“However, we need to do it in a way that respects the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland, and, of course, our shared history and geography with the Republic of Ireland".

>>129233024
Varg is faggot welfare queen and a LARPer

That hand flag looks like something a guild in some mmo from 20 years ago would use

>>129240803
>God make Adam sin
Uhm Eva fucked up lad. And not because of god

File: 1496995995065.gif (2MB, 387x315px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 387x315px

>>129238416
>>129238540
>>129238619
>>129238687
>>129238889
>>129239092
>>129239156
>>129239324
>>129239413
>>129239551
>>129239754
>>129239879
>>129240022
>>129240278
>>129240353
>>129240412
>>129240553
>>129240617
>>129240711
>>129241123
>>129241195
>>129241324
>>129241424
>>129241545
>>129242030
>>129242098
>>129242249
>>129242312
>>129242683

>>129242546
Did you actually Read that?

>>129242712
Not about Schengen but yeah, they want soft brexit.

>>129242769
Not according to Calvinism of course

Chapter III
Of God's Eternal Decree

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5]

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11]

>>129241866

The nationalists are nice, hard-working, tax-paying, generally decent people, as are some of the tamed "small u" unionists.

Loyalists on the other hand... well, if you crossed a nigger with a Roma gypsy, you'd have a loyalist. They're welfare-scrounging, entitled layabouts who use false snowflake victimhood narratives to chimp out and destroy their own communities. Genocide would be a mercy as their existence must be pain for them.

>>129242962
I read the book

The thesis is MOST of the founding fathers were influenced by Deism

>>129241831
I should have said implemented. But they aren't enlightenment eithet

I dunno, but I can't wait for all the bullshit about how the government will be supposedly ruled by the DUP whenever Labour gets their knickers in a twist.

>>129243131
Enlightenment is against Protestantism

deal with it

>>129243131
This is Protestanitsm in practice

3. Luther and Melanchthon Suppress Swiss and Anabaptist Books

"When the controversy on the Lord's Supper was started at Wittenberg, the utmost precautions were taken to suppress the writings of the Swiss Reformed theologians and of the German preachers who shared the latter's views. At the instigation of Luther and Melanchthon there was issued, in 1528, by the Elector John of Saxony, an edict to the following effect:

" 'Books and pamphlets (of the Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, etc.) must not be allowed to be bought or sold or read . . . also those who are aware of such breaches of the orders laid down herein, and do not give information, shall be punished by loss of life and property.'" (111;v.14:232-3/65)

"Melanchthon demanded in the most severe and comprehensive manner the censure and suppression of all books that were hindering to Lutheran teaching (66). The writings of Zwingli and the Zwinglians were placed formally on the Index at Wittenberg." (111;v.14:504)
4. Protestant Universities

"Moreover, antagonism had also grown up among the Protestant universities, and one reproached the other with being the fosterer and begetter of false doctrine . . . Wittenberg itself, but lately regarded as the birthplace of a new revelation and of the newly awakened Church of Christ, in 1567 was declared to be a 'stinking cesspool of the devil.'" (111;v.14:231-2)

>>129242926

Goes well with Careless Whisper

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izGwDsrQ1eQ

>>129242926
Stay assmad loser

3. Luther and Melanchthon Suppress Swiss and Anabaptist Books

"When the controversy on the Lord's Supper was started at Wittenberg, the utmost precautions were taken to suppress the writings of the Swiss Reformed theologians and of the German preachers who shared the latter's views. At the instigation of Luther and Melanchthon there was issued, in 1528, by the Elector John of Saxony, an edict to the following effect:

" 'Books and pamphlets (of the Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, etc.) must not be allowed to be bought or sold or read . . . also those who are aware of such breaches of the orders laid down herein, and do not give information, shall be punished by loss of life and property.'" (111;v.14:232-3/65)

"Melanchthon demanded in the most severe and comprehensive manner the censure and suppression of all books that were hindering to Lutheran teaching (66). The writings of Zwingli and the Zwinglians were placed formally on the Index at Wittenberg." (111;v.14:504)
4. Protestant Universities

"Moreover, antagonism had also grown up among the Protestant universities, and one reproached the other with being the fosterer and begetter of false doctrine . . . Wittenberg itself, but lately regarded as the birthplace of a new revelation and of the newly awakened Church of Christ, in 1567 was declared to be a 'stinking cesspool of the devil.'" (111;v.14:231-2)

>>129243127
I'll Tell you that they were influenced by the enlightenment indeed. As we are all. They were protestants still.>>129243131

>>129243392
>Stay assmad loser
it would require me to read a single word of that spam in order to be assmad, don't you think ?

>>129228109
>(((reddit)))

>>129243413
Tell me when it is actually ok to deny Christ as Messiah and supernaturalism of Bible and accept a deist god

>>129243413
Rom. 6.

[1] What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? [2] God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? [3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?[4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.[5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:[6] Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. [7] For he that is dead is freed from sin.[8] Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:[9] Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.[10] For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.[11] Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.[12] Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.[13] Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.[14] For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.[15] What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.[16] Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Calvin btfo

>>129233219
Bloody hell they sound like /ourlads/.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/06/09/secret-blessing-tory-dup-alliance-will-remind-tories-conservatism-supposed-look-like/

>>129231894
>>129232029
Dutch is like a fucking clown language

>>129228109

It's absolutely amazing to see all these lefties going crazy over "What DUP believes".

The third worlders you're importing by the shipload all believe even fewer "human rights".

>>129243655
Jesus says that no one can snatch us out of his hands. Yes, no exterior force (just as Paul says in Rom. 8:31-39). However, he does not say that we can not sin our way out of his hands. If we leave on our own through sin, that is not an exterior force snatching us, it is our ownselves doing it: In John 15, a few chapters later, he says:

[5] I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. [6] If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

>>129243752
Mt. 24:13:

13] But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Only he who endures to the end will be saved. If one does, not he is not saved.

Mt. 6:14-15

[14] For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: [15] But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Thus, Jesus is talking to his disciples, those in his grace, about needing God’s forgiveness. He says that if one refuses to forgive others, God will not forgive you!!! Now, he is not talking to unbelievers but believers. If we are unforgiving towards others, we can not get God’s forgiveness. That is very clear to me.

Luke 12:41-46

[41] Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all? [42] And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?[43] Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. [44] Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. [45] But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; [46] The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

>>129243232
Except that many/most enlightenment thinkers we're protestant
Really makes those cogs turn

Truth is that you've made it into something it wasn't for yourself. You took the arguments and made your conclusion. That's Fine, just don't say It's fundamental enlightenment. Which is only: reason and empiricism

>>129233024
Varg clearly just picked the religion that would let him get away with killing a guy for little to no reason.

>>129243923
Tell me when they follow it then you have a point

Otherwise they are moving away from it

>>129243737
It is isn't it.
Kop dicht jij mongrool

>>129243923
Here is Protestantism undiluted

3. Luther and Melanchthon Suppress Swiss and Anabaptist Books

"When the controversy on the Lord's Supper was started at Wittenberg, the utmost precautions were taken to suppress the writings of the Swiss Reformed theologians and of the German preachers who shared the latter's views. At the instigation of Luther and Melanchthon there was issued, in 1528, by the Elector John of Saxony, an edict to the following effect:

" 'Books and pamphlets (of the Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, etc.) must not be allowed to be bought or sold or read . . . also those who are aware of such breaches of the orders laid down herein, and do not give information, shall be punished by loss of life and property.'" (111;v.14:232-3/65)

"Melanchthon demanded in the most severe and comprehensive manner the censure and suppression of all books that were hindering to Lutheran teaching (66). The writings of Zwingli and the Zwinglians were placed formally on the Index at Wittenberg." (111;v.14:504)
4. Protestant Universities

"Moreover, antagonism had also grown up among the Protestant universities, and one reproached the other with being the fosterer and begetter of false doctrine . . . Wittenberg itself, but lately regarded as the birthplace of a new revelation and of the newly awakened Church of Christ, in 1567 was declared to be a 'stinking cesspool of the devil.'" (111;v.14:231-2)

File: 1497035892688.png (409KB, 661x484px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 661x484px

DEATHSQUADS.

>>129244111


"With isolated exceptions . . . we find everywhere the opinions which are exactly in harmony wlth those of the territorial prince of the day, striving their utmost to suppress all differing views. The theory of the absolute Church authority of the secular powers was in itself enough to make a system of tolerance impossible on the Protestant side...From the very first religious life among the Protestants was influenced by the hopeless contradiction that on the one hand Luther imposed it as a sacred duty on every individual, in all matters of faith, to set aside every authority, above all that of the Church, and to follow only his own judgment, while on the other hand the reformed theologians gave the secular princes power over the religion of their land and subjects . . . 'Luther never attempted to solve this contradiction. In practice he was content that the princes should have supreme control over religion, doctrine and Church, and that it was their right and their duty to suppress every religious creed which differed from their own.' (64)" (111;v.14:230-31)

"The Corpus doctrinae of Melanchthon had passed muster for a long time in Saxony, but on the occasion of the crypto-Calvinistic controversies the Elector Augustus forbade the work being printed . . .; the press control, which Melanchthon had advocated against others, now hit him himself." (111;v.14:506)

"In the Protestant towns numbers of preachers bestirred themselves zealously with the help of the municipal authorities to suppress the writings of all opposing parties. 'When first Luther began to write books, it was said,' so Frederick Staphylus recalled to mind (1560), 'that it would be contrary to Christian freedom if the Christian folk and the common people were not allowed to read all sorts of books. Now, however . . . the Lutherans themselves are . . . forbidding the purchase and reading of the books of their opponents, and of apostate members and sects.'" (111;v.14:506-7)

>>129244127
END PRODDIE

>>129244209
See Matthew 5:22:

But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.

Every one who becomes angry with his brother is liable to hellfire. In Mt. 5:19, he just said that one’s righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. Anger can be one’s downfall from grace.

John 3:16 ditto

I’ve responded on this passage in my earlier email!!!

John 5:24 ditto Don't dodge these, for if you do you will have to give account unto God dear friend!

I don’t dodge, I give it the context. First, what does not only John 5:24 say, but all the verses, including 5:24-29:

[24] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. [25] Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. [26] For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; [27] And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. [28] Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, [29] And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

>>129234625
Brexit is only restricting white immigration though
Pakis and Africans don't benefit from EU free movement

>>129233219
>responsible for gay marriage ban, abortion ban(even rape babies), gay people can't give blood etc.
sweet
>>Ties with, members part of etc, Loyalist Paramilitaries, targeting civilians, using fear as a tool to get their votes and money.
sweet
>numerous Loyalist Death Squads
fucking cash
>their voters are all inbred cunts with subscriptions to The Sun and Daily Mail, all they do is drink Bucky and complain about their kulture.
Im sold

>>129244333
>>129244111
KEKE

>>129244363
Protestantism is shit

>>129233092
Those people tend to identify as ethnically "American" and settled in Kentucky. Most Irish-Americans in the NE are the real deal. Although many of them also have Yankee roots that they don't like to talk about because the Jews don't make movies about bad ass WASPs.

MARTIN LUTHER AND JAMES

Martin Luther noticed the problems that James posed for his doctrine on justification. There are 50 volumes of books in a series called Luther's Works. Despite the huge amount of exegesis that he did on the bible I could not find a study specifically on James. It is this section on faith and works, the heart of James' epistle that caused Luther problems. He wrote of James: "In a word St. John's Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul's epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter's first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it." (Preface to the New Testament in Luther's Works, Vol. 35, p. 362).

Luther condemned the epistle of James as deficient in the power and function of faith:

We should throw the epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg], for it doesn't amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, 'Wait a moment! I'll oppose them and urge works alone.' This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, althought this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there is no order or method in the epistle. No he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constatntly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: 'As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.' O Mary, mother of God!! What a terrible comparison that is!!!! LW, 54, 424-425

>>129244746

Both Protestant and Catholic scholars see that James in this section indeed expands on faith very thoroughly. James shows us works intimately tied in with faith and obedience.

Luther wrote that James erred on justification and Abraham. Luther comments on Genesis 22 that James misreads it. He took umbrage at Jas. 2:21 that Abraham was justified by works:
James argues in his letter (Jas. 2:21) that Abraham was justified on the basis of his works. Because the text says:`Now I see that you are righteous', he wants to conclude from this that previously Abraham was not righteous. . . . .Abraham was righteous by faith before God acknowledged him as such. Therefore James concluded falsely that now at last he was justified after that obedience, for faith and righteousness are known by works as by the fruit. But it does not follow, as James raves: `Hence the fruits justify' just as it does not follow: 'I know a tree by its fruit; therefore the tree becomes good as a result of its fruit. Therefore let our opponents be done with their James, whom they throw up to us so often (Luther 4:134).

It must be noted that Luther did feel that works would follow if one is really a Christian. In fact even though he castigated James he did in one essence state that works should follow. He wrote:
Faith is a living, daring confidence in God's grace, so sure and certain that the believer would stake his life on it a thousand times. This knowledge of and confidence in God's grace makes men glad and bold and happy in dealing with God and with all creatures. And this is the work which the Holy Spirit performs in faith. Because of it, without compulsion, a person is ready and glad to do good to everyone, to serve everyone, to suffer everything, out of love and praise to God who has shown him this grace. Thus it is impossible as to separate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate heat and light from fire.2

File: 1497025413571.jpg (319KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1920x1080px

>>129228244
WTF, I love Orangemen and Royalist pigs now!

>>129244964
What about this
"With isolated exceptions . . . we find everywhere the opinions which are exactly in harmony wlth those of the territorial prince of the day, striving their utmost to suppress all differing views. The theory of the absolute Church authority of the secular powers was in itself enough to make a system of tolerance impossible on the Protestant side...From the very first religious life among the Protestants was influenced by the hopeless contradiction that on the one hand Luther imposed it as a sacred duty on every individual, in all matters of faith, to set aside every authority, above all that of the Church, and to follow only his own judgment, while on the other hand the reformed theologians gave the secular princes power over the religion of their land and subjects . . . 'Luther never attempted to solve this contradiction. In practice he was content that the princes should have supreme control over religion, doctrine and Church, and that it was their right and their duty to suppress every religious creed which differed from their own.' (64)" (111;v.14:230-31)

"The Corpus doctrinae of Melanchthon had passed muster for a long time in Saxony, but on the occasion of the crypto-Calvinistic controversies the Elector Augustus forbade the work being printed . . .; the press control, which Melanchthon had advocated against others, now hit him himself." (111;v.14:506)

"In the Protestant towns numbers of preachers bestirred themselves zealously with the help of the municipal authorities to suppress the writings of all opposing parties. 'When first Luther began to write books, it was said,' so Frederick Staphylus recalled to mind (1560), 'that it would be contrary to Christian freedom if the Christian folk and the common people were not allowed to read all sorts of books. Now, however . . . the Lutherans themselves are . . . forbidding the purchase and reading of the books of their opponents, and of apostate members and sects.'" (111;v.14:506-7)

DUP WILL RULE THE WORLD

>>129244834

That is a statement of faith that any Catholic Christian should be able to affirm. This statement agrees with James; nevertheless, Luther does separate what he himself wrote is impossible to separate. He takes umbrage that James so clearly seems to indicate that faith and works can not be separated in regards to justification. Another indication of his vehemence against James:

That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. . . . .Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretation, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did (Luther 34:317).

Such an irreverence for the Word of God would be laughable were it not the fact that he was the founder of a revolution against the church.

In this paper I will examine all of James 2:14-26. I will examine it section by section, present the varying views, and critique these views.

JAMES 2:14-17

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, `Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, it has no works is dead.*

John Calvin

As the reformers did not cast from scripture James as they did the deuterocanonical books, they realized that if they were going to keep it in their canon they had to interpret James. John Calvin did a multivolume commentary on the scriptures which included James.

>>129245262

Calvin as well as Luther wrote that scripture can not contradict scripture and that the Roman Catholic understanding of Jas. 2 can not be correct because it contradicts his understanding of Paul (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6).3** He starts from that premise before he dissects James. Calvin notes that v. 14 does not start, "If a man has faith", but "If a man says he has faith.." "Plainly he implies that there are hypocrites who make an empty boast of the word, when they have no real claim on it."4 Calvin writes that James is disputing with those who do not really have faith to speak of. These peoples' faith are lifeless as it is empty of good works.5

Protestant 1 - James = Faith Alone

Here I will look at those Protestant scholars who I noticed agreed in essence with Calvin that James does not conflict with the doctrine of salvation by faith alone (Sola Fide). John MaCarthur is a radio preacher and author who believes that Catholics are not Christians ostensibly because we believe that both Paul and James say works are necessary for salvation.*** He agrees with Calvin that the person under discussion in these verses has no real faith as his faith shows no expression in deeds;6 however, in contrast to Calvin, he does not only admit, but strongly defends the point that the question in v. 14 relates to salvation: "Faith in this context must carry the full soteriological significance. James is speaking of eternal salvation. He opposes the notion that faith can be a passive, fruitless, intellectual exercise and still save."7 MaCarthur admits that James is speaking of eternal salvation, and yet he retains belief in salvation by faith alone. He thus contradicts himself in his own words.

>>129245389
R.A. Martin likewise stresses that the person in this section just proclaims faith but does not really have it. This person has no real concern for the person ill-clad or lacking food. The faith that James attacks is an understanding of "faith" that sees it merely as a pious sentiment or an intellectual acceptance of doctrine.8

Alex Motyer agrees with Calvin that James is contrasting in this section a living faith and a dead faith; nevertheless he disagrees with Calvin's idea that the person mentioned in vv. 14-16 is someone who merely believes in God like the demons do:

Imagine a person who professes faith. We must not emphasize the verb `says' as though from the outset to cast doubt on the testimony. As far as that goes, we may and must assume that the unnamed person offers an impeccable account of placing faith in Christ. But the observer can add to the spoken testimony something that the speaker left unsaid. "Works, however, he does not have." There is a claim to faith unsupported by any concrete evidence in the life of the man concerned.9

>>129245459


Protestant 2 - James = Faith Plus Works

A majority of Protestant writers that I surveyed admitted that the very first question in v. 14 on whether faith can save apart from works has to do with salvation. They write that faith plus works according to James are the basis for justification. This includes: Thorwald Lorenzen who writes "His question is not whether works apart from faith can save, but whether faith apart from works can. The answer is no. . . .The perspective is soteriological (how can I stand before God), not merely ethical (how must I act in the world)"10; Sophie Laws writes the answer is no as it lacks the deeds of mercy and reminisces of the separation of goats and sheep for eternal life based on whether acts of mercy exist (Matt. 25:31-46);11 Martin Dibelius notes that v. 14 deals with justification before God.12

In opposition to Calvin but agreeing with Motyer, Laws writes that the person in vv. 15-16 does actually have a real faith:

File: 1490913678280.jpg (67KB, 680x1020px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 680x1020px

>>129245169
>>129245262
>>129245389
Here we are, torn between the one true faith that wants us to be a cuck, and Heresy that affirms the validity of our inborn nature.

Truly, the world is in the palm of Satan

>>129245677
Protestantism is still shit

>>129245546

James does not portray the person as callous. He is the man who says he has faith. Go in peace is a semitic idiom. He expresses hope (Mark 5:54) when he says be warmed and be filled. Confronted with a case of need, he commits it with prayer to God, who clothes the naked and feeds the hungry (Gen. 3:21; 1 Sam. 2:5; Ps. 108:51; Luke 1:53) and he sends away this fellow believer with expressions of confidence. To James, such a response is totally useless. The man is presumed to have the means to supply the needs of the body. He believes that God would wish such need to be relieved, yet he himself does not himself act in accordance with that belief.13

Laws shows us that the Calvin caricature of the person who says he has faith could only be arrived at to buttress his position on faith alone for justification.

Dibelius states that the illustration of a man who does not provide help (vv. 15-16) is not an example of faith without works (vv. 14, 17) but an analogy of the two. The common point to which both relate is barrenness. As well-wishing without help is in vain, so faith without works is vain.14

>>129228109
DUP in polish mean "ass" (pol. DUPa)

>>129245867

Catholics

Catholic scholar Otto Knoch notes that James makes explicit that orthodoxy of belief and convictions do not enable a man to achieve salvation. He writes that one can draw conclusions just by v. 14 that faith by its very nature impels a man to put it into practice to live by it. Faith is directed towards deeds as surely as the seed is directed towards fruit.15 Thomas Leahy notes that within James (Jas. 1:3, 6; 2:1, 5; 5:15) works encompasses the obedient implementation of God's revealed will in every aspect of life while faith is the free acceptance of God's saving revelation.16

Knoch writes that vv. 15-16 is an example of faith not working; however, I agree with Leahy that it is rather an incisive analogy,17 as Dibelius claimed. Faith and works are as intertwined as if one really cares about people who need help, they will help them. In v. 17 he writes so, meaning just like. . . .Then James closes v. 17 to bring home the point of the analogy: In order to be availed of salvation, one must have a living faith.18 If one does not have works, you are eternally dead.

JAMES 2:18-19:

18 But someone will say, You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder.

>>129245975


John Calvin

Calvin argues that here James talks about a live faith that

is active will be demonstrated to others. Fruits will inevitably be born from living faith. Verse 19 shows conclusively to Calvin (You believe that God is one) that the whole discussion is not on the subject of faith, but on an uninformed opinion of God.19 Calvin writes that James means that if you believe in the same way that demons believe, then is it no wonder that you will not be justified.
20 Faith rests upon the assurance of God's mercy. However, nowhere in the text does James limit his description of faith to the assurance of God's mercy.


Protestant 1 James = Faith Alone

Even the most ardent teachers of Sola Fide admit that James teaches here that faith and works can not be separated. Ralph Martin writes that James shows us here that real faith is not just intellectual assent to a proposition about God (the demons have that), but rather trust in God. Martin writes that James "does not speak of works being separate from faith."21 Motyer notes that James points to faith with no results as demonic. Results prove the living reality of faith.22 MaCarthur writes that "a man who claims to be a believer, yet has no works to demonstrate the reality of his faith, will find that such faith does not justify him, for it is not real."23 These people hold to sola fide, but their admissions here in effect show sola fide to be false. Real faith must have works to avail one of salvation.

Protestant 2 - James = Faith Plus Works

James goes into a diatribe style of writing with an imaginary objector. The prior scholars stress that when James writes show me your faith (v. 18) it means that the rest of the section in regards to works is only demonstrating faith, not the cause of justification (despite vv. 20-24). Faith is one thing and works demonstrate it; however the principals of faith and works can not be separate.

>>129245927
My grandma used to say be good or I'll spank your dupa. Now I know

>>129228109
>Christian party
More they are the party of Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland who just happened to be protestants.

>>129246031
>4
As Adamson writes: "When James writes "I will show you my faith by what I

do", he is not divorcing, but marrying principle and practice in Christian life. Faith alone can not save. . ."24

Calvin quotes v. 19 to state that if you believe like the demons do, no wonder you will not be saved; however, James does not state this. The statement of belief is loosely translated the Shema (Deut. 6:4) but is not mere intellectual assent that demons have. James indicates the necessary outcome of faith, which is works, and the impossibility of faith existing alone.25

Catholics

Catholic scholars agree that James shows us the inseparability of faith and works. The objector tries hard to differentiate between faith and works. As Laws had previously written, there is no need to presume the ill-intent of the objector. As Paul had written (cf., 1:Cor 12) the objector is saying "you have one spiritual gift I have another, Praise God!" James writes that works are not a special gift, but a requirement of saving faith. This reaffirms the answer to the question of v. 14.

The demons show us in v. 19 that they have orthodox belief (Matt. 8:29; Luke 4:34). Calvin wrongly equates that James' main point is not to believe like the devil. James writes that belief alone will not avail you of salvation. Knoch writes that "the Christian who believes has every opportunity to work out his salvation."26 Demons do not produce works, believers do, and thus can be saved.

>>129246152
>>129246152
JAMES 2:20-24

20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren.
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar.
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and by works faith was made complete. 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"' and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

John Calvin

Calvin attacks the Catholic interpretation of James because he sees Paul differently:

It is a fallacy that James puts part of justification in works. If you would make James agree with the rest of Scripture and with himself, you must understand the word "justify" in another sense than Paul takes it. For we are said by Paul to be justified when the memory of our unrighteousness has been wiped out and we are accounted righteous. If James had taken that view, it would have been preposterous for him to quote Moses' statement: "Abraham believed God" (Gen. 15:6; Jas 2:23). . . .It is absurd that an effect precedes its cause, and Moses testifies falsely in that place that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.27

Calvin writes that James is only stressing that good works are invariably tied to faith:

When he states that Abraham was justified by works his words are in confirmation of the justification. . . .James means that the man who professes himself to be faithful should demonstrate the truth of his fidelity by works.28

>>129246131
Protestantism is for dumbos

File: Focus Group Approved.jpg (40KB, 428x359px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 428x359px

>>129232110
>>To establish low tax, deregulated Freeports in economically underdeveloped parts

If this is such a good strategy for increasing local productivity, why not implement this legal regime everywhere?

Rhetorical question, obviously.

File: 1463129278500.jpg (614KB, 800x609px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 800x609px

>The party is socially conservative and has vetoed the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland since 2015, in opposition to the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Former DUP minister Jim Wells called the issue a "red line" for power-sharing talks, adding that "Peter will not marry Paul in Northern Ireland", adding "We will strangle that idea at birth ... nobody wants it except Gerry Adams anyway."

judeoprotestant right wing (in a bad way) ziocucks too stupid to see who the real enemy is.

stole their red hand symbol from the Garlic Irish they hate.

Complete shitbags who need to head back to the UK to delay the date of White Minority.

real faggots. no culture of their own, and love a german queen. dont get that the English hate them or at least dont think they're British.

>fundamentally christian
>probably hates the new gay fag non-irish president of Ireland
>probably hates muslims trying to subvert and chnage their culture
Maybe this is needed

>>129246250

This admission by Calvin that good works are inevitably tied to faith reveals yet again the falsity of faith alone being sufficient for salvation. Calvin feels that when James writes in v. 22 that `works make faith perfect' he only shows that works were evidence of faith's true quality. Works are thus merely a demonstration of faith. However, the context in Genesis 22 does not show us Abraham offering up his son Isaac as a demonstration to anyone besides God. He is only justifying himself before God. In fact, Jesus in Matthew's gospel shows us that demonstrating before people is what God condemns (Matthew 6:1-6, 23:5-7). That is exactly what the Pharisees did.

Calvin argues alto that it is not the perfecting of his faith, but shows his integrity by the action where Abraham revealed the remarkable fruit of his loyalty. He writes that when James says that one is not justified by faith alone, the faith that does not justify is a bare and empty awareness of God.29

>>129246644


Protestant 1 - James = Faith Alone

Protestant scholar commentary on v. 20 in a sense shows agreement with the Catholic Church that James shows that faith without works is barren. MaCarthur notes that James "labels the objector foolish, meaning empty, defective: The man is hollow because he lacks a living faith; his claim that he believes is fraudulent; his faith is a sham".30 Ralph Martin writes that the tern "foolish man" not only shows a deficient understanding, but moral error and sin. He notes that both vv. 17 and 20 show faith without works as dead and ineffectual for salvation.31 Such admission by people who believe in sola fide undercuts sola fide.

The Protestant scholars already noted have admitted the necessity of works. The previous sections in James build up to this pivotal statement of faith. Those who believe sola fide is consistent with James teaching believe that this refers exclusively back to verse 18, which says "Show me your faith. . ." According to them this section is solely a demonstration of works, not a cause of justification. As noted already though, Abraham did not make this demonstration of offering his son Isaac before anybody besides God. He journey three days with two people. Then he sent the two people away from himself so he could be alone with Isaac. The only one who commends Abraham is God, who renews his covenant with Abraham, based on his obedience. These facts demonstrate again that here Abraham is being justified before God.

Motyer sees faith and works as distinctive realities. Faith is the primary concern of this section according to him. In v. 17 it is faith which possesses works. In v. 22 he claims faith is the dominant partner in its colleague-relationship with works. "We must say, therefore, not `faith and works', but faith productive of works."32

>>129246505
>t. ((("Irish"-American)))

>>129246726

MaCarthur deals with this section by stating that James really does not mean justification by works (although just read vv. 21-24) by quoting Paul (Rom. 3:28; Eph. 2:8-9), and refers to (Jas. 1:17-18) the gifts being given from God.33 In my mind just stating that this is a gift of God does not deal with the reality of works being God's gift and intricately tied in with justification through the example of Abraham's work of offering his only son.

Ralph Martin admits that "Had there been no works, Abraham would not have been justified"; however he claims that this does not contradict sola fide because "the absence of works would have shown that he had no real faith".34 R.A. Martin writes that the way in which James writes that Abraham was justified by works is that it is produced by faith, and when he writes that he is not justified by faith alone he means not by that lip-service, non productive faith which is really no faith at all.35 These admissions show that works are needed for salvation despite them saying that they believe in salvation by faith alone.

Protestant 2 - James = Faith Plus Works

Lorenzen writes that when James mentions the fruit being barren (v. 20) it must be seen in light of vv. 14 and 17 in relation to justification before God.36 A majority of Protestant scholars that I surveyed actually admit that within James the Catholic view of justification is correct.**** The material principle of the reformation, sola fide, can not be reconciled with the apostle James.

>>129246309
I agree. I consider Protestantism as a sect not different than scientology. It is also cucked to beyond.

Catholicism is the opposite. It is based.

File: 1489278896266.png (322KB, 678x674px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 678x674px

>>129232525

>>129246788
>[Up

Dibelius writes that James was influenced by Jewish exegesis. As Christianity proceeded from the Jewish scripture and tradition that is to be expected. Dibelius analysis of how a man is justified according to James in vv. 20-24 affirms Catholic soteriology:

Abraham is not considered a justified "sinner", but a righteous man who is recognized and rewarded by God. Matthathias (1 Macc. 2:52) says of Abraham "was he not found faithful when tested, and righteousness was reckoned to him.
" In other words, God found him faithful and as a reward "attributed righteousness" to him. The thought of Jas. 2:21 is that since Abraham "offered his son upon the altar he was approved by God and a righteous man by virtue of his deeds.37. . . .When it say that he was reckoned righteous (v. 23), there must be an allusion to his works. Only then is the author justified in appealing to this text. Only then does the third part of the saying follow naturally. Abraham owes his position of honor as friend of God to his faith and works.38

In commenting on this section Lorenzen also sees James referring to Sirach (Jas. 2:21-23; cf. Sir. 44:19-21). James is indeed discussing faith but works are decisive because they alone help faith to achieve its eschatological goal.39

Calvin and the prior scholars made much (In order to maintain

sola fide) of the works of Abraham being only a demonstration of faith; however, Laws notes that James makes no such distinctions as consequence, demonstration or confirmation in relation to faith and works: for James faith and works go together as a necessary unit. James writes in v. 22 that faith cooperates with works, and by works faith was made complete.40 When Abraham offered his son Isaac, he was not declaring or showing his faith to anyone but God.

>>129246839
Kill all proddie

>>129246875
Catholics

John Lodge took an in depth look at this pivotal section of James and the faith of Abraham, and specifically 2:22. Here I can only briefly summarize some points. Lodge shows us the chiastic patterns:
v. 20 Do you want to know faith (a) - works (b)
v. 21 Abraham (c)
v. 22 faith (d) - works (e)
v. 22 works (e') - faith (d')
v. 23 Abraham (c')
v. 24 You see works (b') - faith(a')41

Lodge writes that James used grammar specifically chiastic to show the relation of faith and works. He shows that this chiastic literary unit begins at v.20 with a question and v. 24 with the answer "not by faith alone" bearing the burden of the whole. Chiastic poetry has the dominant ideas at the beginning (v. 20) and end (v. 24) and middle (v. 22). Abraham shows that one is not saved by faith alone.

At center is 2:22 where it says "faith was active along with his works, and by works faith was made complete." Lodge argues that the grammar is deliberately chiastic to show inseparability of faith and works. The poetic pattern puts the key words together and knits the whole passage from end to beginning.42 He argues that the grammar in this verse does not have two subjects acting upon one another, but faith acts and receives its wholeness or completion thru works.43 V. 23 ties Gen. 15:6 back to "faith was perfected by works" through chiasmus. It joins scripture back to faith (perfected/fulfilled) by works, and its emphasis is unambiguously on faith.44

Lodge summarizes the relationship of faith and works in 2:20-24:The scope of Jas. 2:20-24, reinforced at every point by the literary structure, is to understand faith primarily: how it acts (to the advantage of works), how it is perfected (through works), and how it is not "apart from" or "in addition to" works. When faith is acting it is "together with" works.45

>>129246969
kek

>>129246839
pope_kissing_nigger_feet.jpg

>>129246969
JAMES 2:25-26:

25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way.
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

John Calvin

Calvin comments that Rahab does not show justification by works. He argues that good works are required of righteousness, and Rahab shows that, but good works do not confer righteousness.46 He does not venture to comment on James' analogy of body and spirit with faith and works and his conclusion that faith apart from works is dead. Calvin thus denies the clear force of James words.

>>129233996
i wouldn't care but looking at the situation we're in now it's obvious that if you give the left an inch they take a mile

>>129247018
Protestantism contradict the bible and church fathers

>>129247105
>4


Protestant 1 - James = Faith Alone

The life of Rahab is a good example of how God can redeem all who through God's grace seek him. Motyer's contrasts shows us some of the depth of James' demonstration of God's grace:

Abraham is a major bible figure; Rahab a minor participant. Abraham the father of the faithful; Rahab a foreigner. Abraham the respected; Rahab the disreputable. Abraham a man; Rahab a woman. As is so often, the contrast is intended to alert us to the fact that a fully comprehensive statement is being made - as it were covering the situation all the way from Abraham to Rahab and back again.47

Rahab is a perfect example of hospitality. James does not mention her declaration of faith (Josh. 2:9-11) but it is already assumed. Rahab came over from the paganism of Jericho to the camp of Israel (Josh. 6:23). R.A. Martin writes that Rahab's example is only a demonstration of faith. In the analogy of the body he uses it to prove that it is only a demonstration. Breath according to him is a only a proof of faith. He gives an expanded translation of v. 26 to bring out this parallelism: "For as the body apart from breath (the evidence of life) is dead, faith apart from works (the evidence of faith) is dead."48 Ralph Martin sees v. 26 as being a conclusion to the whole section. He grants a significant premise:

James refuses to grant the possibility that faith and deeds can be torn apart and treated as individual entities. For him the only faith worth the name is the faith that is expressed in deeds, just as deeds take on their meaning as the fruit of the faith that is both salvific and sound.49

Despite writing eloquently on how James shows the inseparability of faith and works for salvation, Martin then writes "In summary faith alone saves - but saving faith is never alone; it completes itself in deeds."50 He in effect separates what he agreed could not be separated. Those statements are contradictory and irreconcilable.

>>129247222
kekeke I am kek

>>129247222
Protestant 2 - James = Faith Plus Works

Why does James use Rahab as an example? Although the emphasis is on how what she did justified her, James by no means underplays her faith. He presupposes his readers know about her faith (Josh. 2:9-13); nevertheless, the reason that James mentions this is to highlight the importance of works and justification. A reading of Joshua 2 shows that if she did not provide safety for the messengers, she would not have survived (Josh. 2:14-20). Roy Ward ties the example of Rahab to the parable (Jas. 2:15-16). She is one who showed hospitality, an act of mercy.51

In v. 26 James brings a concluding verdict to the whole section. He shows the impossibility of separating in any way faith and works. He makes a stark comparison of faith and works with body and spirit. Dibelius notes:

The separation of the two does not produce a type of release for the spirit but results in a dead corpse. The principle is clear: a faith (body) that is not supported by works (spirit) is lifeless. As breath enables a body to live, likewise works produces a living faith.52

>>129247333
KEKEKEEKEKE

I AM KEK

They're Right Wing Conservatives, imagine the Westboro Baptist Church getting into the white house, I love it, now we are even more of a right wing country, lap up those liberal tears..

>>129228244
Ok I'm happy with this... I think?

Ulstermen were the good guys right? Or did they bomb us as well? Red pill me xD

>>129247333

Catholics

Knoch writes that James' use of Rahab is an example of God's unfathomable love for sinners, the love which Jesus later revealed so powerfully in his dealing with publicans, harlots, and outcasts.53 Rahab indeed risked her life, family, and possessions for her newfound faith in God. As Leahy notes, "Her fellow citizens also had a kind of faith; but she alone acted on her belief and was so justified--was found pleasing before God and saved (Josh. 6:22-25)."54

The Catholic commentators on v. 26 is similar to Dibelius. Knoch notes that the point of comparison (between faith without works, and body without spirit) in both cases is death. "Faith which is not lived, which leaves no mark on a persons behavior, is useless for salvation."55

>>129247445

CONCLUSION

Luther, Calvin, MaCarthur, and others refer to Paul to refute the concept that sola fide is wrong; however we have seen through the eyes of all types of scholars that James teaches us that justification before God must include works. Luther denies that James should be part of the bible.(Now, James was in his Bible, but as noted in his preface to James, he declared it not to be part of the true canon. The Deuterocanonical books were also in his Bible, but the existence of those books in the Bible does not mean that he considered them Scripture. In fact in his preface to James he specifically spells out why he does not considre James Scripture, even if it was in his Bible. See the link here which has the preface to James and Jude: http://www.freeyellow.com/members3/matt1618/preface.html). Calvin and other sola fide scholars start off with the sola fide premise based on their interpretation of Paul in Romans and Galatians. That is then imposed on James. I agree with Lorenzen who writes how proper exegesis of James should be conducted:

Most people appear to read our text through Pauline glasses. On such a reading, it merely becomes an illustration of faith working through love (Gal. 5:6), that works belongs to the consequences of faith. But is that what the text really says? We should try to be discerning exegetes by being servants of the text, not master over it.56

When James is studied through James' eyes we see a powerful call to not have a theoretical faith. Even through many Protestant scholar's eyes we see works as not only a demonstration of, but inseparable from faith. We have seen that faith only acts and receives it wholeness through works. James reinforces in various ways that works are necessary for justification, even if it is God who gives us the necessary grace to be obedient.

>>129247437
Protestants are the bad guys

>>129247504
When James is studied through James' eyes we see a powerful call to not have a theoretical faith. Even through many Protestant scholar's eyes we see works as not only a demonstration of, but inseparable from faith. We have seen that faith only acts and receives it wholeness through works. James reinforces in various ways that works are necessary for justification, even if it is God who gives us the necessary grace to be obedient.

James gives us a powerful and explicit explanation of true faith. He describes to us what is saving faith. There is no question that he wants us to demonstrate our faith before the world, but his primary purpose is to show us how faith and works put us in a right relationship with God. He uses analogies, examples, and then Old Testament figures to show us that faith and works can not be separated in any way at all. He shows us through Abraham, the father of faith, that obedience is necessary for salvation. Justification is shown through these examples to be a lifetime process, not merely a one time event. Abraham seemed to have no hope at all of having a first-born son. He is given a son and an impossible demand is placed on him to offer his only son. He believed that God would provide and God was faithful. James also shows us how even a harlot woman can be changed to someone who would risk life, possessions, and all for God. James also clearly shows us that the material principle of the Reformation, sola fide is false.

HA!

That'll teach those fucking commie scumbags who fucked up our election. I hope the DUP start demanding the repeal of all their social justice bollocks in return for their co-operation.

File: the_good_life.jpg (108KB, 1024x725px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1024x725px

Can someone clear something up for me.

Are they actually for Hard brexit? Some anon said they want about having an open border with Ireland, so EU. What's the angle on this?
Im fucking confused and drunk boys. I can't into potato troubles.

>>129247018
>Protestants
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/05/worlds-first-lesbian-bishop-calls-church-remove-crosses-install-muslim-prayer-space/

>>129228109
>Reddit says their a terrorist Christian fundamentalist party is that true?
Whatever Peddit says, you should assume pretty much the exact opposite is actually true.

>>129233996
I don't want to go back to the past, I just think we chose the wrong future

When politicians are celebrating an end to whiteness, and the first transsexual Muslim married in the UK, you should acknowledge something is wrong

>>129247677
kek

>>129247542
>next popery witchchant domino game they'll puff black smoke to signify new coal pope

>>129247625
Matthew 25:31"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44 Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45 Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' 46And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Sola fide btfo

>>129247758


"With isolated exceptions . . . we find everywhere the opinions which are exactly in harmony wlth those of the territorial prince of the day, striving their utmost to suppress all differing views. The theory of the absolute Church authority of the secular powers was in itself enough to make a system of tolerance impossible on the Protestant side...From the very first religious life among the Protestants was influenced by the hopeless contradiction that on the one hand Luther imposed it as a sacred duty on every individual, in all matters of faith, to set aside every authority, above all that of the Church, and to follow only his own judgment, while on the other hand the reformed theologians gave the secular princes power over the religion of their land and subjects . . . 'Luther never attempted to solve this contradiction. In practice he was content that the princes should have supreme control over religion, doctrine and Church, and that it was their right and their duty to suppress every religious creed which differed from their own.' (64)" (111;v.14:230-31)

"The Corpus doctrinae of Melanchthon had passed muster for a long time in Saxony, but on the occasion of the crypto-Calvinistic controversies the Elector Augustus forbade the work being printed . . .; the press control, which Melanchthon had advocated against others, now hit him himself." (111;v.14:506)

"In the Protestant towns numbers of preachers bestirred themselves zealously with the help of the municipal authorities to suppress the writings of all opposing parties. 'When first Luther began to write books, it was said,' so Frederick Staphylus recalled to mind (1560), 'that it would be contrary to Christian freedom if the Christian folk and the common people were not allowed to read all sorts of books. Now, however . . . the Lutherans themselves are . . . forbidding the purchase and reading of the books of their opponents, and of apostate members and sects.'" (111;v.14:506-7)

>>129247758
VII. PROTESTANT WITCH HUNTS

1. Overview

A. Preserved Smith

Witch hunts were widespread from the 16th century up to the 18th. Smith, the secularist historian, feels that:

"A . . . patent cause of the mania was the zeal and bibliolatry of Protestantism . . . Luther . . . seeing an idiotic child, whom he regarded as a changeling, . . . recommended the authorities to drown it, as a body without a soul. Repeatedly, both in private talk and in public sermons, he recommended that witches should be put to death without mercy and without regard for legal niceties . . . Four witches were burned at Wittenberg on June 29, 1540. The other Protestants hastened to follow the bad example of their master. In Geneva, under Calvin, 34 women were burned or quartered for the crime in the year 1545. A sermon of Bishop Jewel in 1562 was perhaps the occasion of a new English law against witchcraft . . . After the mania reached its height in the closing years of the century, anything, however trivial, would arouse suspicion . . . The Spanish Inquisition, on the other hand . . . treated witchcraft as a diabolical delusion." (115:186-7)

B. John Stoddard

"Protestants in the town of Salem hanged numbers of persons accused of being witches, and in the neighbouring town of Charlestown a poor old clergyman was, for the same reason, crushed to death between two slabs of stone! This cruel deed was even publicly commended by the Protestant ministers of Boston and Charlestown. John Wesley . . . was one of the bitterest persecutors of 'witchcraft,' and declared - 'The giving up of witchcraft is in effect giving up the Bible.' In England under James I, a law was passed subjecting witches to death on the first conviction, even though they had done no harm. Twelve Anglican Bishops voted for this law! The last witch was hanged in Scotland in 1727, but in 1773 the Associated Presbytery reaffirmed its belief in witchcraft." (92:208)

Britain First is funded from Ireland. I wonder if that's where they got their armoured shit from.

>>129247406
I am actually happy with this outcome. The UK government will become now even more right-wing thanks to Theresa May.

Also DUP is for a hard Brexit because they main concer is keep Northern Ireland separate as possible from the Republic of Ireland. The ROI is in the EU so they will do anything to end freedom of movement.

>>129247805

There are sevaral problems with Tim’s analysis. First, he brings all his presumptions in the text of Matthew 25. All must ask yourself, is Jesus saying what Tim is saying, or is Jesus saying what Matt is saying. Any clear reading of the text shows that works, or lack of works are determinant of the final destiny of the people being judged.

He quotes many other texts that may be somewhat related, but in doing exegesis of this passage, we must examine exclusively what this passage says on the sheeps and the goats. Am I being hyprocritical in just focusing on the sheeps and the goats in this judgment scene? After all, in my 4 part demonstration of the errors of Sola Fide in relation to Abraham, I did quote Genesis, Hebrews, Psalms, etc. to make points. When we looked at Paul in Romans, I did so because Paul quoted Genesis and the life of Abraham to make the points. Thus, it was important to investigate the life of Abraham in Gen. 12-15 and Heb. 11:8, which destroys the idea of a one time imputation, btw. As we need to understand what Paul means, we must see the background of Genesis to understand what Paul is saying in Romans. It is the same thing in relation to James, who also quotes Genesis.

>>129248025
protestantism is shit

>>129248031
They can't. Ireland and Britain have had free movement of people without the EU. We're basically the same country.
>>129248101
I don't give a shit.

>>129248056
In doing purely biblical exegesis, When there are no specific cross references, or clearly parallel passages (Judgment scenes that have to do with the separation of sheep and goats), we must be sure to focus exclusively on the related scripture itself. A common tact that I see of those who believe in Sola Fide for example, is the doing away with James 2:14-26 by relating to Paul in Romans. This is what Tim has done in regards to the sheeps and the goat. His own reading of passages in other sections he brings into the passage in question in Matt. 25:31-46. Jesus does not quote himself anywhere else in this passage. How one interprets the passages of John 10 and etc. must not be the main point of exegesis of the passages here. If he wants to exegete John 10, by all means let us exegete John 10, and draw our conclusions on John 10. The same with John 15. However, we do not exegete John 10 with Matt. 25. After we reach our conclusions, then we see how they can be brought together in unity.

> The "these" to which Christ refers are those who did not do good works, and the righteous
> are those who did. Thus, it is taught by the RomanCatholic that good works are the basis of salvation,
> and are in fact a part of our justification. To borrow from another verse,

> "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves
> shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of
> life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John 5:28-29)
> Thus, it is asserted by the Roman Catholic that the good works done by the individual sheep
> is the righteousness contemplated by God in the verdict of justification.

>>129248230

Well, this passage may give us the reason for this. What is the reason that our Lord gives for some going to heaven, some going to hell? What does he directly say?:

34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 FOR I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'

He says For I was hungry, and you responded, that is why you are entering heaven. Why this repudiates the Faith Alone, one time imputation theology, because there is absolutely no hint of it in this crucial judgment scene. Why does Jesus not say in this judgment scene, or any other, as a matter of fact, “Because I chose you, and because you have an imputed, forensic justification, and you are covered with Christ’s righteousness alone, you will go to heaven. These works I really appreciate, and as a reward, you get extra rewards in heaven.” No, Jesus does not say that. These are determinative of whether one is a sheep, or he is a goat. The For of v. 35 is the reason that Jesus explains how he inherits the kingdom. What does he say to the goats? Does he say, “Depart from me, because you did not receive my alien, imputed righteous, and because I chose you, and you thought works had to do with salvation, you people go to hell and join Mother Teresa, because she thought works had to do with salvation, you should have trusted in Sola Fide, etc.” Jesus gives absolutely no hint of this theology in this most important judgment scene. Instead, we get,

>>129247805
what?
answer my question sheamus