Explain sacraments after reading this verse

Remaining an heretic until the end of the life keeps you from salvation.

Sorry for my poor English, that’s the sin I actually meant. So besides that then what else

First you need to explain what you mean by sacrament.

Attached: cette.jpg (480x480, 25.29K)

What, according to you, is the purpose of the 10 commandments? Are they not for Christians? But, if Christians are saved by the very fact they're Christians, they don't need those commandments, do they, because they get saved anyway?

ewtn.com/expert/answers/sacraments_in_scripture.htm

By truly believing in Him. Why call me the retard; I’m only quoting what our God said.

Aren’t certain sacraments things you can buy to supposedly achieve salvation? I had heard that sacraments leading to salvation was a thing a long ago in the Catholic Church.

From my catechisms…

…

...

Bro, I'm not even sure you know what sacraments actually are. And sacraments aren't something that Rome invented, they have always existed in every Apostolic Church ie the Churches founded by the Apostles (st. Mark-Alexandria (modern day Copts), st.James-Jerusalem, st.Peter and Paul - Antioch (the Syrian Orthodox) and Rome).

And see also article 15 of the confession of Dositheus to see that the sacraments are all of apostolic origins.
crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

Zig Forums was a mistake. separate denominations should all have their own boards

Matthew 28:19
Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 26:26-28
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Also John 6 where He explains it.
John 20:23
Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Acts 2:3-4
And there appeared to them separate tongues, as if of fire, which settled upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. And they began to speak in various languages, just as the Holy Spirit bestowed eloquence to them.

Acts 19:6
And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them: and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

Acts 6:5-6
And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip and Prochorus and Nicanor, and Timon and Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles: and they praying, imposed hands upon them.
James 5:13-15
Is any of you sad? Let him pray: Is he cheerful in mind? Let him sing. Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man. And the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

No, sacraments and Liturgy are like taking your medicine.
In Orthodoxy we have a very different view of salvation, even the denotation is much less used. Theosis is the basis of our Soteriology.
If you're starting from the protestant assumption of salvation, sacraments are retarded. I'd agree.
Though I think that assumption is flawed because nothing can justify us before God, no act and no faith. Only through God's Energy/Grace.

By your own statement you are in Christ before baptism. Are you saying salvation is distinct from being in Christ?

Then why did Jesus ordered us to be born again from water to be saved.
This user is correct you guys have a completely new way of thinking about salvation different in every way from Christians.

(checked)

Attached: tenor.gif (498x372, 969.28K)

Because the new birth doesn't come by baptism, the baptism only depicts the spiritual rebirth

John 3:5
Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

don't you know that the whole bible is just metaphors? jesus was more of a guru tbh

The water birth is the physical, contrasted with the birth of the spirit which is spiritual

Attached: 20190101_171436.jpg (810x2153, 813.76K)

Protestant meme word.

That's actually pretty convincing to me, I'd like to see a rebuttal.

Question… do you think taking part in the Sacrements would be considered "works"?

Yeah, my NT 1 prof explained it to me and it all made so much sense now

Yes, that's why we Baptists call them ordinances to clarify that they have no part in the salvation process
A work is any act

Yeah that's wrong. They aren't works.

Great assertion buddy

I'm just saying, Catholics don't view it as works. You are wrong.

We take part in the Sacrements as they are dispensations of grace, Christ is the one who ordains the Sacrements.

autism

Attached: Screenshot_20190101-173514_Brave.jpg (1080x546, 168.49K)

Your quad zeros (checked) are representative only of the emptiness of your post. This place is amazing. There is nothing like it in the world.

We are all wrong. Let's listen to each other to try and glean what small truth might be present in each of our traditions.

Uh, for what act are we doing? We do nothing but recieve.
You just said any "act", it's literally not an act.
Act of Giving, makes sense.
Act of receiving, does not make sense.

no, this place is just retards yelling at eachother and preaching heresies.

What does the Lord's supper look like at your church?

I recieve bread and wine.
Do you perform acts to receive Grace? No! That's non-sense we both know this!
But, we recieve grace for partaking in the holy elements! Because they are not acts, they are vehicles of grace, where by Jesus Christ administrates.

what do you do when you receive them?

...

Because baptist are the ones to tell catholics what they believe lmao.

Acts 2:38
But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why did Peter told people to be baptised if a man profits nothing from it in your opinion?

Besides if baptism cleans your sins as Peter says how can you claim its merely physical? Sin is a condition of the soul.
Those who are born from the flesh are flesh, but those who are born form the high, the ones who are born of the Spirit are spirit and that's what baptism does. Makes you born from the high.
St. John the baptist clearly says that Jesus is gonna baptise us in the Holy Spirit. Why did he say it? Don't we just feed to say I believe you Jesus? Why being baptised?
Another thing why would the apostles bother too baptise anyone if it wasn't needed, if it was just a work?
Either baptism is required for salvation or the apostles were heretics. Pick one.
And you think you really believe in Jesus when you say you don't need to do the things he told us to do jsut because you have a Bible written and compiled by the apostles and their successors?
Top kek.

Wait a minute what

invidio.us/watch?v=VEXXTO4HkCs

They are right. He admitted that explaining the Catholic doctrine is appealing to the Authority of Jesus Christ, not of our limited mind.

I eat, and I drink, of his body that he has given to me. So that by his blood my sin is cleaned, and by his body I am raised into life.

Is prayer, a work?

Be repent and be baptised because you have remission of sins
Baptism remains an urgent instruction to follow, and I highly doubt the unbaptized are saved since they're not willing to follow the first step of christianity

Read:

Are eating and drinking actions?

So what's your point? I don't get it.

Repent and be baptised*
Like, "take two asprins for your headache"

Acts=/=Actions

Answer me as I have answered you, are Prayers works?

they are but it doesn't count because they think it actually does something instead of being a symbolic act. so yeah, they will burn in hell

What do you mean by this? Do you need evidence that repenting is not works salvation?

Imagine doing this many logical circles to hate Catholicism then basically agreeing with Catholicism anyways.
And before you ask the Catholic church states you can be saved even if you want to be baptized but you die for some reason before going to church.

You think Baptism doesn't actually do something?

YOU THINK BAPTISM IS SYMBOLIC?

Which point?

Actions are acts
Prayers are acts
The Lord's supper is an act, as in you "do" it

nothing does anything because john 3:16, papist

Ohh man. If you're contending Prayer is a work then I think I'm done here.

Do you really think you have the Son in you by disagreeing with his direct orders? Holy cow what kind of autism is this?
Not an argument.

It is a fallacy to just assert that I'm wrong because Catholicism says so. That's all I was saying. I'm not trying to tell Catholics what they believe.

Do not ever mistake me for agreeing with Catholicism. Catholics practice pedobaptism by sprinkling.

You're arguing with a sarcastic Catholic you goober

Work means action
Prayer is an action

Attached: ergon work.png (985x784, 118.65K)

Thats… thats not how it works, we are Catholic because we are united in the same doctrinal Faith. We don't base our Faith off what we are told.
Literally not an arguement.

He was saying that your knowledge about Catholic doctrine is wrong
Wew. Am I detecting some insecurity there? I'm so scared with your threat bro.
Also baptist by sprinkling is at the best doubtfully since water must run through your body. Sprinkling is actually a protestant practice.

i'm just shitposting and i honestly can't tell who is saying what itt. i wish we had flags

One more thing. You are actually agreeing with Catholic back there.

Kek. Just.

So, what do we accomplish when we pray?

This

You are saying we believe in works salvation though.

But you do?

You:
Catholicism:

Prayer
Pray is a verb
The Bible says "pray without ceasing"
Eat is a verb
The Bible says "take, eat; this is my body"

The act of belief in Christ even as you guys define it its an act of the mind.
Therefore its a work.

So by your categorization everything is a work? Is breathing a work? Surely by your definition of it being a verb it has to be.

Interesting argument.
It's a totally internal action, doesn't have the same association as ergon. People do talk about thinking as mental work though

Yes breathing is a work. It is not "good works" in the biblical sense, but it likewise can't bring salvation.

Now, I see your point of view.
Works are pointless.
Everything is a work.
Therefor everything is pointless.

Stupid. Entirely stupid.

Well riddle me this pal:
Works can't bring salvation

But Faith can bring salvation
And works can bring faith
Then why not recommend people to do works?

So is praying.
More, believing is also a verb.

Works can not bring faith

Attached: Screenshot_20190101-182742_BLB.jpg (1080x789, 309.66K)

...

You only believe in Christ because someone had to work to print a Bible for you.
The works of the man who printed your Bible made faith in you.

Thanks again for proving Catholicism point especially verse 21.

this quote seems like it supports the catholic opinion

Those words wrote literally written by a pope.
Do you expect him to believe them?

That quote refers to works not bringing about salvation, not to works bringing about faith.

You're shifting the subject of the work, the implication was that one's works in unbelief can make him a believer.
I was absolutely dependant on hearing the gospel preached to me for my salvation

"Add to your faith" as in, it's already present

Confirmation bias

I'm just about through defending my position against these spiteful attacks. This is a Catholic echo chamber, you people are sarcastically mocking me to each other. Do you think this is going to win me over? I came here for exegetical debate.

An hour ago I shared my stance on baptism. Someone else found it compelling and asked for a Catholic rebuttal
Despite the swarm of y'all calling me an idiot, nobody has bothered

But how does this change my argu-

Oh good God, we've got a mistake so deep!
Faith is not a one and done thing. The whole bible speaks against that. You've just said it isn't like that too:

Attached: 1443919426266.png (431x551, 95.31K)

No one is saying that.
In fact what the church teaches is that for example a protestant no matter how much of a good person he is, how much money he gives to the poor even if he dies for Christ, if he dies in his heresy he goes to hell because outside the church there's no salvation. So you are again agreeing with us.
If there was no preachers doing their job, adoing literally their work, you wouldn't believe in Christ because you would hear the gospel in the first place.
And we all refuted it. I don't know if anyone mentioned that user but all he has to do is read the rest of the thread.

flag posting and no censorship on >>>/christianity/

Is this schism number 10 now?

Good luck proving that any country you haven't visited exists. You also might want to move out of wherever you live, don't drive cars, only eat what you've personally made yourself, and never listen to anyone. Because you literally cannot trust anyone under any circumstances if you believe that.

Appeal to Authority is completely valid. The authority just has to be an acceptable authority. But you can't even go at that angle unless you think Jesus Christ isn't a trustworthy authority.

...

So basically, just ignore the very things Jesus instituted (especially the Eucharist and Baptism), and just hold up a "Personality of Jesus" that is subject to random definition?

For all our sakes, please learn the difference between personal experience and appeal to authority.

"Appeal to authority" is a fallacy that takes the form of "X is an authority on Y, therefore X is correct". X could very well be mistaken, experience does not make one immune to error, hence why this is a fallacy.

Even if the authority could be wrong, if both parties in the argument agree that said authority is reliable for the purposes of the discussion then there is no further argument that needs to be done in that case. There is nothing fallacious about that at all. I have never been to Australia, I have no logic I could use to prove without a doubt that Australia exists. However, people I consider reliable have told me that Australia exists, therefore I accept that Australia exists with no further argument or proof necessary.

If the two parties are in disagreement on if said authority is reliable, then what your saying applies and the appeal to authority is no longer valid.

How could we have a discussion on any complex matters if we have to first prove on entirely logical grounds that any of the base assumptions that construct them are true?

For example, how could you have a discussion on electronics if you first have to prove that electricity exists and all electrical components that make up electronic machines are reliable?

Discussion and argument itself breaks down without appeals to authority.

You accept them as common knowledge unless challenged otherwise, out of expedience. Even deep scientific proofs don't rehash commonly known knowledge. (Example: papers that involve geometry don't relitigate the validity of the Pythagorean theorem)

It's the form that challenge takes, and your response to it, that makes it a fallacy. The body of science has been wrong about a great many topics before, and it is lazy at best and dishonest at worse to pretend that someone is automatically correct without direct proof.