16th century

Fools will tell you: "Because the Bible clearly teaches that my understanding of it is right.
Never mind the fact every other "bible centered" parish has their own doctrine the Bible also clearly teaches in their mind."
They project their reason unto the real world because they think their minds can fully describe the real world. It is the actual definition of insanity. Like a man who hears voices and thinks they are real. It's part of their inherited cult of reason from popeboys.

user, please

This 200%

Babylon is a hellenisation of Bab-ellim meaning the "Gateway of the Gods", not confusion.

...

There have been plenty of protestant miracles, but the Catholic Church has better media outreach, particularly among the Catholics.

There is no official protestant process of canonization, so of course there have been no official newly-instituted protestant saints. This matters little in the absence of Catholic-style practice. The Catholic Church in turn has issues with canonizing people with questionable qualifications.

Personally I'm less bothered by this than the multitude of "hey guise what Church/denomination should I go for?"/"I want to be a Christian but I'm torn between Anglican/IFB/SDA pls help" threads.

It's not up to us, it's up to God. Pray, fast, and definitely read scripture - basically, ask Him Who is calling you.

Yeah, that's like a recipe for a shitstorm and nothing good comes out of it. I guess that they are mostly new converts, so they don't know how things work here, or trolls.
But this type of answers show a flaw in those people's reasoning, which not only affects newcomers, but also those who are already in and follow the rule of "just reading the Bible".

Sure. Reading the Bible, especially when you are new to the faith isn't something that I would encourage a lot of the time. Don't ignore it, but don't think it's the sole determiner of begoming any denomination. Apologetics is quite possibly more important to begin with, because otherwise any earnest seekr would ask, like the eunuch, how can I understand it unless someone guides me?

Boy, sure is good to have all that unity.

Yeah the problem with your thought process is you believe the lies of a murderer that they were the only ones around. My church is baptist just as scripture says and has a history going all the way to John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus Christ in 33 A.D. and the apostles. Never did it break off from any pedobaptistic church, actually those guys left the true faith to start a political party and a state church. They place loyalty to the Party above all else and try to downplay scripture.

And as for getting saved, you need the word of God. The churches safeguarded this throughout all this time and never once fall to a state church with their false, unscriptural baptism. That's what Matthew 16:18 guarantees.

As for understanding the word of God, once you're saved you have the Holy Spirit dwelling with you and in you according to John 14:16-17, meaning God is the one giving all understanding. As soon as the eunuch in Acts 8 got saved, he no longer needed any man to teach him because according to 1 Thessalonians 2:13, the word of God worketh effectually in you that believe. And in 1 John 2:27 a saved person knows that the anointing we have received abides in us.

1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

1 Corinthians 2:12-13
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

John 14:16-17
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 16:13-14
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
—

So there you go, folks. God exists. All you have to do is believe his word that he is able to do these things. Then read the Bible with that knowledge. Diligently seek God.

You're missing my point. I'm not arguing Sola Scriptura v.s. Scripture and Tradition here. As I said before:
If you consider Scripture to be the only basis of your faith, then you should make as much effort as you can to understand it, which means finding out what the early Church taught about those texts.

Which murderer? Constantine, who was pushing the arian heresy? Christians faithful to the orthodox beliefes, who were persecuted by arians when they got political power? Future popes, that lived long after the fall of Roman Empire?
Any historical sources on that? Any Church Fathers who taught what you teach? ANYTHING from that era that shows your statement to be true?
Nice communist refference. We put loyalty to the Church above our own pride - if generations of Christians, bishops, theologians and Church Fathers say one thing and you think the other, then it's most likely you who is wrong.
Again, I would like a citation for this
So you admit that if there were no baptists for at least some time, let it even be a year, then your religion is false, because it contradicts Matthew 16:18?
Which doesn't protect you from all error, as demonstrated by 2 Peter 3:16, Galatians 1:6 and history
Because he already had the Gospel explained to him
True, God's grace sanctifies you and works within you, but that not gives you immunity from error. Even if we accept your believes as true, then we still have many stories of baptists, who believed deeply, they were doing many great works which you consider to be am external sign that someone is saved, right? and they have still gone away, to Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, atheism or other faiths.
They don't need any man to teach them, because they have already been taught the Gospel. John talks about people who don't believe in Christ a few verses before, those are the men that they don't need them to teach.
And if they don't need to learn anything, then why would John even write this? They know everything, why would they need teaching from him?
Teaching of the early Church are neither man's wisdom or the spirit of the world. They lived holier lives that we all do in the times of persecution and they were closer to the apostles than we are, so there's less distortion over the years and changing culture.
Pretty much all what I have said before also applies here, so I won't repeat myself

Attached: mad man.jpg (848x477, 65.95K)

Op,you arent going to understand everything right away.
But the one thing you should search for is how to identify false teachers and false bretheren.(google helps)
Then decide if you wish to go to a teacher.
However i must say,never submit to any denomiations.
They're only purpose is to distract people from the teachings of christ with nonsense rivalries about their faction being better or "more authentic" because (insert reason here).
Going solo may be a good option.

You mean the Bible which ignorant and unstable people distort to their own destruction? Read it, but don't just read. I'm sure you'd agree that the early Church was faithful to the word. See what were their practises, what they believed and how they interpreted Scripture. You think that council of Nicea introduced heresy? Read about it and everything that happened before, read apologetics up untill that point. Get informed about what you actually believe

It's good that you search for answers. Aren't the Church Fathers the best way to go though? Wouldn't you agree that first teachers that had the apostles talk to them irl are a better source of knowledge than some pastor that bases his teaching only on his own understanding of the Bible or, even worse, (((modern scholars)))?
You're going to end up in one eventually. At this point we have so many denominations that you're basicly unable not to agree with core principles of at least one of them without coming up with a major heresy. But if your views directly contradict every single Christian that came before you, then who's wrong here?
Not really. Christians (and everyone for that matter) need a community, but if you have Catholics, Lutherans and Baptists in one community, conflicts will arise and the division is going to come sooner or later, because everyone wants to stay faithful to what they consider to be the Truth. That's how denominations are formed. And yes, if two communities claim objective Truth and they contradict each other, then one has to be more authentic than the other because truth cannot contradict truth.

If you must pick a teacher pick one that identifies as nondenominational.

And no,it is possible to not be in a denomination.

The one and only thing you must do to be saved is believe in Jesus. (Romans 10:13)
Period.
If any group says "yes,but…" then you cut them off immidately.
You'll whittle the rotten ones out faster that way.
For example: if a group says you have to pray a certain way with a certain object a certain amount of times.
Cut them off as rituals of men.

And yes,not belonging to a denomination means you belong to a group.
A group that believes Jesus is the only way and everything else is nonsense.

< How the winnie the pooh can anyone think that it's a legitimate way of coming to the truth?

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
- Matthew 7:7-10

He is a rewarded of them that diligently seek Him
- Hebrews 11:6c

And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.
- Psalms 9:10

Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
- Psalms 119:2

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
- Jeremiah 29:13

Evil men do not understand justice, But those who seek the LORD understand all things.
- Proverbs 28:5

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
- Proverbs 3:5-6

Salvation is far from the wicked, For they do not seek Your statutes.
- Psalms 119:155

If one truly seeks God, he will find Him. Those who never found Him, didn't want to find Him.
Telling someone (who is in search for the truth) to read the Bible, is the best advice you can possibly give them.

If both you and your teacher think that, then what's the point of having a teacher?
I won't argue about the nature of salvation because it's not the point of this thread, but you can see that you're already considering one denomination to be more authentic than the other.
And there are other important questions. Is baptism needed for salvation? Answer yes and you go with Lutherans. Answer no and you go with the reformed/baptists. Are you predestinated, or is it about your will? Are you OSAS, or can you lose your salvation? Different answers to these questions give you completly different Gospels, but there is only one Gospel and God's curse is on those, who preach lies (Galatians 1:8)
That only leads to my OP. If you only read the Bible, how do you know you're right if many great theologians like Calvin and Luther I don't agree with them, but I cam't deny they were intelligent and educated came up with different Gospels?
Why should you ask your own, uneducated mind or a non-denominational teacher who, if holds to your principle, doesn't really care that much, instead of looking for answers in the writings of those, who were taught by the apostles themselves?

So the Bible tells you that uneducated people twist Scripture, that you won't understand it unless someone explains it to you but you still stick only to the Bible refusing to educate yourself and call it turly seeking God?
Sure, God is going to help you if you actually look for Him, but the Scripture clearly tells us, that just reading the Bible is not the way to do it.

Most church's today are pozzed or are filled with dying grannies, I just want to sit at home and read my bible in peace. If you are filled with the holy spirit, the bible is an easy and fun read, everything just makes sense because its the truth. You don't need some modern day priest telling you how to think.

You sure aren't helping the situation
"And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."
What about 1st, 2nd or 3rd century one? The Bible surly thinks you need someone.

Ephesians 4:11-14
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"

See 1 Corinthians 1 & 2.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
That no flesh should glory in his presence.

If you read 1 Corinthians 2 the point of going there is that God is required to give understanding. It doesn't matter who else is involved, without God it will never go anywhere. You have to be saved or understanding cannot come. And regarding anything that isn't scripture, 2 Peter 1:20 doesn't apply. Only Scripture, which is the word of God, has no private interpretation, since the Holy Spirit is guiding the individual to truth. Does that mean you will be a natural born teacher? No, but it means you will be able to know what is right and wrong. And you have to have that or you will be eternally lost.

If you are trusting in something, anything that's corruptible instead of the incorruptible word of God, then you will never have a sure foundation. I hope that makes sense by now.

1 Peter 1:23-25
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

2 Timothy 2:15-16
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

t. Kurt Gödel

ok

ah, thank you for the correction

still, "gateway of the Gods" still leads to relativism, which is arguably confusion, but I cannot use in the way I did previously

See this is the problem right here. Going to Mass is almost as if not more important for you then the bible. You go to mass to gather with other faithful to witness the mysteries of faith. You go as a sacrifice of your time to the Lord to gather your prayers with the rest of the flock to send up to him. Acting like the bible is the only thing required simply makes you a book enthusiast I don't care what Denom you are.

Theology is not wisdom of this world. Philosophical knowledge is built up completly by human reason, which works well with things of this world. But Christ came with divine truth, which is above everything we can come up with, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't study it
And it still doesn't answer my question. Both Calvin and Luther thought they were being guided by the Spirit, they were also well-taught in Scripture, original texts and yet they came up with different Gospels. How do you know that the Spirit has guided you? Even better so, how come that non-denominational Churches didn't exist for most of history of Christianity? The Spirit was being lazy?

But you somehow can understand how to get saved without being saved?
You say that it's enough to just ask God and you're good, but the early Church clearly believed that baptism is necessary:
Irenaeus (120?-200), “'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" (Fragment, 34, A.D. 190).

Origen (185-254), "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." (Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9)

Now, which one is more likely? That the early Church was wrong and the Spirit was silent about false religion up untill modern times, or that you're wrong, following a demon disguised as an angel of light?

Then there must be many different truths, since different individuals are brought to different truths. But God doesn't change and God doesn't deceive, so there's something wrong with your theory

Though the word of God is incorruptible, it has to processed by your mind, which is corruptible, both by your own human imperfection and demons

You said you can't deny they were very intelligent and educated. But as I showed, that doesn't necessarily correspond to being saved. So people who think that the fact someone was well-written and widely acclaimed who wrote a tome with a lot of technical terms means they can't be wrong are falling for one of Satan's tricks. If you think the fact two such people disagree is somehow contrary to scripture, you'd be wrong because of the passages mentioned. In fact, the fact the word of God has always been available is the only important factor for getting doctrine, other mens' works are irrelevant. Good thing too, because Scripture is the word that has always been.

All true but some people disguise their vain philosophy as theology. Don't fall for it. Don't let worldly prestige and fame lead you astray, nor worldly wisdom or great intellect.

There's a number of things here that need to be addressed. First of all, you don't know what they actually thought, only what they allegedly said. I say this because their surviving writings and attributions are subject to corruptions. We can never be entirely sure of something that isn't scripture, any word of it could have been altered by a third party between then and now. We're not getting the whole picture.

But more importantly still, since 2 Peter 1:20 applies to scripture that means works of man are fallible and could be misunderstood by people coming from a different context. You could very well be misunderstanding something one of them said. There's no spirit present to show you the "true meaning" behind their writing, even if there is one. We can't treat anything except Scripture this way.

And lastly, you can only know yourself whether you believe the word of God. You can't know if someone else really does believe it or is only claiming to. That's why exactly it doesn't really matter what some particular person said. Only Scripture really matters.

That's why the gospel needs to be spread by individuals who are already saved. And yes, that's the word of God as we see in 1 Peter 1:25. Only by it can understanding come because God gets involved in the process. And not only that: without it you will get nowhere because faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Are you about to quote scripture? If not then you might just be reading propaganda, and it has all of the problems of interpretation that nonbelievers like to pretend the Bible has. If it's not scripture then you could be misunderstanding it and since the author isn't infallible, you wouldn't gain much by understanding it. Certainly nothing you couldn't find in Scripture.

Ok so show me it in Scripture.

The actual early church was right because it kept the received word of God. That's been here all the time, with the potential for anyone who believes to be saved. I'm not sure why you think a bunch of added on top doctrine helped if it wasn't even around from the beginning. Jude verse 3 brings up the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Guess what, you're reading it.

The whole point is you don't need manmade things, you just need to believe in the word of God. You don't need me in particular, you don't need someone holier than thou to explain things to you with their own words. You only need the word of God presented to you and believe it when you see it. This is by God's grace, not by the excellency of speech of some particular explainer you encounter.

You can't know what other people really believe, only yourself can you know. That's why it's good that we're only required to believe the word of God and not the words of man. What an individual needs is God's grace to give continual understanding direct from his word; of course, that requires you believe God is and does.

If you can't believe that, you'll end up lost trying to find someone, some substitute, who can do what only God, according to scripture, can do. You'll be believing, trusting in the integrity of, some man's words instead of the inspired word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2 Corinthians 1:21-22
Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

Luke 11:9-13
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

I didn't really need to explain all that either, I just wanted to. I could've just linked the scripture and be done faster.

Because of their field of study, them being educated means they were studying the Bible.

But you claimed that if you believe, then the Spirit is going to lead you to the truth. Well, since you, Calvin and Luther contradict each other, then at least two of you must have not get this knowledge from the Spirit and all of you clearly believe in what you preach, considering your actions. So what's going on? Is it that two of you don't believe correctly? But thay would imply, that knowledge comes before believing, contrary to what you say.
If you think that you understand those passages, you'd be wrong because of example mentioned surly not the only one that I can find

Except if you live in acient times and you cannot read. Or you live in medieval times and you cannot read. Or you live before 18th century and you cannot read.

Well, we have many different writings of theirs, all keeping the same tone. We have communities founded by them that believe specific things. We can trace the development of reformed and lutheran theology back to their source. We know when the split happened, we have the writings aimed againts each other. Those are not some details that you can forge, we're talking milions of people, believing specific things.
But if Luther and Calvin are not good enough, then we can even look at modern day Christianity. You're going to have Bible-believing Christians among baptists, calvinists, lutherans, anglicans, pentecostals, catholics, orthodox etc. all believing that the Spirit leads them, while contradicting each other.

Is your interpretation of the Bible a work of man? And how can you trust your judgement if trust only the Bible?

How can I know that, if there are tons of people also believing that? Is everyone who believes something different than you lying? Because I can see only four options:
1. Everyone who believes something different then you doesn't believe, but doesn't know about it - it contradicts what you've said about knowing if we believe
2. They are lying and aren't really believers - this is the only option that doesn't contradict what you say, but for that you'd have to say, that hundreds of generations of martyrs weren't really believers, which doesn't make a bit of sense unless they "didn't believe correctly, which I have already talked about
3. The Spirit lies to most of them - not only does it contradict the nature of God and implies that He sins, but also means that you cannot know if you're the one that God gives you truth or lies
4. Your interpretation is wrong - this is the one I'll go with

But you said that we don't know who is really saved. How would I know who to listen to? Should I maybe, just maybe, educate myself then? But that's still knowledge coming before being saved.

Cont.

We're reaching levels of scepticism that shouldn't be even possible
OK, if you're so skeptic about acient sources, then how can you trust the Bible and that it wasn't changed?

ok

Attached: DUGYV9nVwAA2-46.jpg (1200x1200, 149.88K)

yeah, Christ never wanted us to care for the poor or give alms or nuthin

I'm not picking on whoever it is that you respect, but remember what 1 Corinthians 2:13-14 says. The natural man receiveth not the things of God, nor can he know them.

Yes, this is what the word of God says after all.

Ok lets just assume for the sake of argument nobody agrees. The only way you as an individual can find out who is right is to be saved yourself. 1 John 4:6.

The word of God can be spoken just as easily as it can be read from a written page. The important thing is the words, the abstract words not the physical book.

Do we know what these people said or thought in their final days? No, so we can't speculate. More broadly, the ongoing development of reformed and lutheran theology is only partially from scripture unlike what they even claim about themselves. Because they simply started other pedobaptistic-state-churches and wrote confessions for them.

Just because someone claimed to do something doesn't mean they actually did it. Claiming is just the first step.

And I am not disputing that. But like you said, not everyone can be right. The question immediately becomes who actually follows the word of God and who is always pointing to non-inspired writings for their doctrine and other sayings not found in scripture. And to know that firstly requires discernment by the Holy Spirit.

There's two things I'd like to mention here. First of all, I've never met someone outside of a New Testament following church who claimed to be following the eternally unchanged word of God with guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is pretty rare. But let's assume they all actually were able to expound this doctrine and yet still claimed all their other strange doctrines. That still means that if you were saved you would be able to discern who was in error by studying the in-depth scripture for yourself and submitting to guidance of the Holy Spirit. Or if it's a doubtful disputation— about something that scripture doesn't even talk about— you might just have to use discretion to understand whether the two sides actually disagree and whether the supposed controversy is even relevant in the first place. Maybe it doesn't even matter, and a purely political thing between state churches.

If you want to believe you can see the inner workings of other people's minds and know whether they actually believe what they say, then you can think that. But that's putting a lot of faith in something other than God. I instead choose to believe in the true statements of God's literal word no matter how hard to believe they might be. Even if it means this world is and has been engulfed in darkness with only one narrow way out.

Also you have to remember one other thing I said earlier.

John 8:47
He that is of God heareth God's words:

John 8:47, John 10:1-6. The fact certain peoples were confused already shows they don't know God's word from a stranger.

In the New Testament they were pretty sure they had it right. And they could tell the spirit of truth from error. Just as it was written to them in the epistles. That's because God gives grace to allow people to hear him and believe his voice, not because of some political deliberation centuries later.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. If someone has their faith in the word of God then the one who reveals all things to them is God. That's the only way they can know who is in error or not. If they don't believe the word of God, then they will just continue to vacillate and be confused because of a lack of discernment.

It all boils down to faith in God's word that the prophecy was fulfilled and it will be fulfilled. Including the part where it says that his words will never be lost or changed. e.g. Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 24:35, Luke 16:17, 1 Peter 1:23-25.

It says those that are unlearned and unstable do wrest scripture. And I can say that certainly is true.

Alright to start off, the version of John 3:5 quoted there is a corruption. I don't know if it was Ireneus or a later person who put that there, but John 3:5 actually says "born of water and of the Spirit" there.

I think I should follow the advice of 2 Timothy 3:14 which says to know exactly of whom I have learned. I don't know whether any of the things you just said are apocryphal or if they really happened, and in either case there's nothing that scripture hasn't already explained and none of these people or things are mentioned there, so you shouldn't need to rely on it.

The word of God is all you need. People who wanted to add things may have commissioned state apparatuses to propagate their own ideas, but those would be people trying to add to God's word after it was already here.

We're getting streached out, so I'm going to compress it to what I consider to be the most important points. Feel free to bring back something if you consider it to be important as well

OK, try to follow me this time. You claim that the Spirit is going to give you the understanding of the Bible. But you also say that:
Therefore, if you don't believe correctly, then the Spirit is not going to lead you, according to you. And you have only two options:
1. The knowledge comes before faith
2. The faith comes before knowledge
If to have faith and be given the full understanding I need to accept a certain way of approaching the Bible, then it means that I have to KNOW how to approach it. Which means that you subscribe to the option number one. But you also claim, that if you just read the Bible, then you're going to be given the understanding you need, without having to study. Your view is contradictory.

This just shows your utter lack of understanding how Scripture came to be. It's not that certain group of people didn't know what canon was - no one knew that! And according to what you believe, you also have no idea, because there is not a single Bible verse that you can cite that is going to tell you what is part of the Bible and what is not! If you can only be sure about the Bible, then you have to prove Bible using Bible, which is circular reasoning. Without history of early Church, without testimonies of early Christians the Bible is as much believable as the Quran. ==But you reject those==. If you were a muslim using the same reasoning, then you would be utterly stuck in your errors. Tell me, why do you choose Bible over Quran. Both claim divinity and with nothing to back up your faith in the Bible, your faith is basicly what suits you best.

And since you reject acient sources, then please, I beg you, give me one reason why would someone believe that nothing was added to the Bible. And before you post another Bible verse, just ask yourself how do you know that all of those verses weren't added there later.
I know that the Bible wasn't changed, because we have acient copies of the Bible. How do you know that if you reject acient sources?
And if you're going to post another Bible verse about it, just go back to the second sentence of this paragraph

Protestant societies, when they remained strong, produced a healthy safe and productive society.

Catholicism is embraced by nations whose character is corrupt and full of graft and failure and betrayal. They only managed to strike back once against the Muslims, and then proceeded to fail and shit all over everything else.

Orthodox produced Czarist Russia and built a empire out of frozen wastelands and the Steppes and nearly defeated Islam. And would have done without winnie the pooh Kike controlled countries getting pissy.

Yeah, I'll just listen to some other guy that read the bible

This dichotomy is false, and also poorly framed. You have not defined the terms in it properly— they are vague, nor given any reason for thinking we should know exactly how the grace of God always works.

So to answer what remains of this, I can say that both of these things come through the grace of God and that God foreknows who to give grace to and I don't, because I don't need to know that to tell people the word.

Canon means the same thing as being the word of God. And yes, people knew what was the word of God and what was not. It says it right there in Scripture.
Well like I said with John 8:47, he that is of God heareth God's words. This is true and self-evident, being a statement of Scripture. Also John 10:1-6.

To those that believe it's already self-evident. That's why I am treating it as such. See 1 Thessalonians 2:13, which is true.

No. The battle of Lepanto, of Viena, of Tours, several crusades ( No, they didn't all fail ). Catholicsim has also produced amazing civilizations also, like Brazil before it fell to modernism and degeneracy ( mostly due to the republic ), the only difference is, they didn't think that working was the best virtue in the world and didn't sacrifice to mammon. I recognize orthodoxy for fighting again'st islam, and i love them for it, but their kingdoms ultimelly fell to islam in 1453 and to the jews in 1918.

A defensive action, also a failure.
A defensive action.
1 succeeded against the Muslims. The rest failed. And in fact, that one Crusade functioned more as a titanic waste of time and manpower, when there were White European peoples and land, right winnie the pooh there, in Spain, that needed to be liberated. There were still some left.

Are you retarded? Brazil? Amazing? Ahahahahahahahahahaha

Yes, a bunch of lazy shitskins and tiggers who achieved nothing but replicating Rome's failure and shitting up their bloodlines. From Mexico to Argentina, with only Chile as an exception, the entirety of Catholic management. Resulted in failure after failure. Centuries headstart, and still decades behind.

Catholicism naturally attracts the stupid, corrupt and lazy.

Gee, I wonder how that happened, couldnt have had anything to do with Catholic treason, could it?
The occupation of the Balkans was heavily assisted by Catholic treason. Its almost as if the onoy successful defenses against Islam by Cathloic forces occured despite Rome, not because of it. Its almost as if the shitskins of the Pope were heavily interesting in shitting up Europe.
Yeah. And yet look how those Communists behaved after WWII. They never flooded their lands with Turks or shitskins and the Muslims kept their goddamned mouths shut. Hell, Bulgaria was on its way to ethnically cleansing Islam.

Even Russian Kike Communists were better than Catholicism.

really made me think

No, more than one crusade succeced, even if you count the ''capture jerusalem' objetive as the sole factor of win or loss.

Brazil was great as an empire, and was reaching europe tier when it ended. It had and still has a hard working honest population, don't let others fool you, most people here are trying to feed their family in an honest way.

We don't know what could have happened if they were under the spanish crown, but these countries succumbed to masonic revolutionary republicanism, even Mexico had two empires before it was destroyed by godless revolutionaries .

My point is, these countries that you so highly of, fell nonetheless, at least rome never fell to muslim rule ( PROTIP: Catholics didn't let them, while hagia sophia became a mosque youtube.com/watch?v=AAHSbIz8fEY )

Lmao they massacred orthodox serbians, opressed religious people of all kinds ( specially orthodox christians ), destroyed churches and persecuted them, and are still better than catholics? good one betraying your catholic apostolic brothers in christ.

Disgusting relativism

Attached: DeMaistre.jpeg (400x527, 26.87K)

Except a lot of modernist churches seek only to dismantle themselves entirely and give it all to the poor, which helps no one

All of those sects were heretical by all major Christian denominarions, so who cares? There was uniformity after the reformation; most of the Reformers were a variant of Calvinism. That is, they believed in predestination to salvation, regulator principle of worship, iconoclasm, etc.