How the hell is raising your hands in the air and getting all emotional for like an hour while a guy screams verses out...

Every wing of the Church has something that makes me cringe a bit tbh. Some Evangelicals have these emotive charismatics and tacky commercialism about them..Some Catholics sperg out on speaking Latin and reciting canon law (in Latin). Some Orthodox are hung up on their earthbound culture more than the gospel (meanwhile, your priests look scary. Christ told us to be lights of the world, but Orthodox priests think they're supposed to signal "death" to the world.. but that doesn't mean DARK. Light is the actual death to the world. By going dark you're just reflecting the world. I don't get it… since otherwise liturgical vestments are so beautiful). If it wasn't for Christ himself, I'd be completely cynical about the images the church sends out sometimes.

Those three above I think have some legitimacy in the broadest terms, so I'm trying to say this with some love. I'm not even mentioning the cults, faggot mainliners, and various oddballs. There's no hope there.

Wow, it's almost like Christ sacrificed Himself once so we don't have to continually sacrifice Him again to atone for our sins.
1 Peter 2:9 (KJV)

Attached: Frequency of prayer by religious group (1)

Cathodox were right, american prots have no reverence or substance in their churches. Catholics were right, prots reject the pope to become their own popes, so they can bind and unbind according to their own whims ( """"interpretation through the holy spirit"""""). America was a huge, huge mistake.

It's true. New World Catholic Imperium when

Attached: 1526530088297.png (600x583, 273.32K)

The lyrics of contemporary christian music are always undoctrinal which is the underlying problem along with its core appeal aimed at pleasing man instead of glorifying God.

Rent free

Attached: 5346CD83-C8EA-409F-BF5F-D1F85C8B7EBB.jpeg (494x440, 49.51K)

You didn't address a single one of my arguments and just used an ad hominem instead, how do you expect to convert anyone like that?

Didnt want debate lmao, just doing a bit of a reflection
yall baptists are too far gone lol

Here in Eastern Europe, we call them neo-protestants.

How can you say that we're too far gone when you literally let the traditions of man run your church. We hold strictly to the word of God.

You mean how you let the traditions of Luther run yours?

What part of "we follow the Bible" is so hard to understand? Luther didn't make up a bunch of new traditions to follow, he just looked at what the Bible tells us to do.

And yet Cathodox also states they follow the bible. The traditions in question are the solas (mostly scriptura and fide) that never were until Luther (pbuh) chimped out and winnie the poohed everything up for everyone.

The Bible is a product of tradition so tradition runs your church too.

thousands of people claim to follow the bible and come to differing conclusions. The holy spirit cant be a schizo.

obviously, this means quite different things to different people. endless talmudization of the scripture.

They didn't have a name until Luther but I can assure you they weren't some new idea that nobody had thought before. Sola scriptura is proven by 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and sola fide is supported by the verses in the list in the second picture here (which I'd encourage you to read for yourself, there's way too many to type out here).

The Bible is the word of God, just because a group of men all agree to recognize it as such doesn't mean it's somehow their product. They wrote it down and compiled it by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and they were led to agree on it through that same guidance, not tradition.

Yes, people can come to differing conclusions based on the Bible if they are guided by their own desires instead of His. Catholics, for example, read their traditions into its verses despite them not being written there.

Not only this, Luther and the whole reformation was entirely premised on restoring the correct Christian practice from the introduction of aberrant theology. They appealed largely to tradition, just rightly as secondary to scripture.

This argument doesn't work for catholics either, there's wide debate about a million topics there as well.

Everyone is either correct or not on any issue, regardless of affiliation. Our job is to compare it to scripture like the Berean jews.

They did an incredibly poor job, as evidenced by even a casual glance at the historical record.

and one of their first failures, was to attack the Eucharist, of which St. Paul claims one can damn themselves to Hell by partaking of without belief in.

No, we have the Pope. Anything the Pope signs off of, officially, ex cathedra, is considered infallible. That's the entire point of the Pope.

the Berean jews didn't even have the New Testament, what you are asking for is to forsake the Church's true interpretation of the Old Testament (a pre-figurement and type of the New Testament; strictly in the sense of Christ and His Teachings) and take it all literally on its own

You are a Judiazer.

ok kid
nice assertions

If you throw out the Church's interpretation of the Old Testament, you invite Judiazing. This is a logical statement.

We have over 500+ years of people opening the scriptures and coming up with weirdo theology. Look up the Adamites, who believed because they were saved they could be naked and live in the woods. There are countless examples of lunacy like this.

What do you think judaizing means?
Do you just mean you're liable to any heresy?
How did you identify that he's a judaizer?

...

To contaminate authentic Christian doctrine and theology with either old Mosaic Jewish traditions (superceded by Christian ones) or create entirely new ones based off of misreadings.

You know, like saying polygamy is acceptable because of how the Tribal Jews lived in Genesis.

definition I just gave above. the more obvious examples are people teaching circumcision. the ones you actually need to look up are nutsos like the Adamites, or any other number of heretical sects

You're putting words in my mouth, I do not accuse the Orthodox of Judaizing; it's a notorious issue with Protestants.

Ok, you mean heretic not judaizer.
Judaizer only refers to one who would require keeping Jewish customs in the new covenant, like circumcision. The idea is to confirm with mosaic law after Christ.

(you)

Do you think they gathered in large comfy brick buildings with aircon and carpet?

Attached: 538.jpg (421x834, 39.37K)

...

2 Timothy 3:17 says that scripture equips the man of God for EVERY good work, how does that not justify sola scriptura?

It's always the same with the other denoms as well. They always say that when confronted with this fact that nobody agrees on anything, they always say that everybody else is looking at the bible with biased eyes.

Which is in itself a belief that is extra biblical nor sufficiently justified through the Bible alone. How do you choose which portions of the bible to omit or include? How do you settle conflicts of interpretation? The various splintering of denominations is proof that sola scriptura is incoherent and has lead to absurd theology. 'Following the Bible' means nothing if you interpret it however you wish in alignment with whatever biases you have.

t. schizo

How does believing in the guidance of the Holy Spirit make me a schizo?

The prot mainliners that believe in fag marriage and women pastors also believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit when they read the Bible.
The New Agers believe the same thing when they personally interpret the Bible.
So who is right? You? The mainliners? The New Agers?

You can believe you're guided by the holy spirit all you want but when you preach something against the Bible (like homosexuality being okay for your example) you're obviously not actually guided by the holy spirit.

Yeah, but thats like, your personal interpretation man.
My personal interpretation is clearly better than yours.

That's the role of hermeneutics
The truth is determined based on solid principles of biblical interpretation. You wouldn't allege that catholic doctrine is arrived because someone in authority just decrees their opinion on it, right?

What do papists have to do with anything? They aren't saved because they believe in works based salvation. As long as I believe that Jesus can save me, I can sin as much as I want, and you can too!

BASED!

no memes, are you possessed? What compels you to false flag as a protestant like that?
It's not even good bait, this is actual schizo behavior

Hey man, just because you don't follow whats written in the bible doesn't give you the right to call me mean names.

Please point out the error or relinquish your assumed moral high ground and take your caning like a man.

Don't be surprised when D&C shills D&C

Catholics don't believe that works (alone) saves them. First you must believe, yes, but then just believing without doing any good works is dead faith. As St. James pointed out:

I think we're in agreement on the general idea, but it comes down to what we classify as works. Would you say sacraments are works (like in pic related) or not? Because I think that sacraments are works, and catholics believe that if you don't partake in certain ones (baptism once, eucharist every week, confession before eucharist as needed) then you're in a state of mortal sin.

Attached: faith&works.png (800x1242, 48.4K)

Is this accurate for the Catholic?

Not Catholic, but Sacraments are Sacraments.
This is like saying baptism(or to a non-sacramental view, neo-protestant Sinner prayers) is a work, for prots.

Well now it's a semantic issue more than anything. I don't know about protestants but baptists would call baptism and the Lord's supper "ordinances", which are things that are good to do but don't offer any merit in salvation because our salvation rests purely in our faith in the Lord. We believe that His sacrifice was enough to save us and that no action we take can merit our salvation. So while it's encouraged for people to be baptized and partake in the Lord's supper (which He told us to do in remembrance of Him) it doesn't damn us if we haven't done it. That's the main sticking point to this argument, is whether a sacrament (or ordinance as I'd call it) is necessary for salvation - and I don't believe it is because to say so would be like saying that His death wasn't enough.

Some of them do say it's a work. It's ludicrous.

Disobeying God is sin. God gave us the 3rd commandment, not going to church on sunday is a sin. God told us to be baptized, so we get baptized. Sacraments are a lot more than "works". They're conduits of God's presence and activitiy. It isn't that we do them to "earn salvation", rather we do them because they are conduits of God, they are conduits of salvation, choosing to receive them is choosing God.

How does it not meet the criteria?
Participation in a sacrament is an action. It's not a spiritual, allegorical term.

Attached: Screenshot_20190325-125759_Bible Hub.jpg (1080x2346, 633.12K)

Blowing your nose is an action. Participation in a sacrament is far more significant of an action than blowing your nose.

You've contradicted yourself by admitting a sacrament is still an action. I'm not denying that it's terribly significant.

If it's an action, then we can only conclude by the law of non-contradiction that such participation can not be a part of becoming saved based on Ephesians 2.
The only consistent answer is justification by faith alone, as Paul makes supremely evident in his Epistles.

You can have good works before you're saved, and you should assuredly have good works after you're saved. The point is that these can not redeem you from the guilt of sin. This is the Christian gospel.

The significance doesn't exclude it from the category of action though.

The 3rd commandment is to not use the Lord's name in vain, which I definitely agree with. But I don't see how that has to do with missing church being a sin. Also, our faith is the only conduit of salvation we need. There are verses supporting salvation by faith in 19 of the 27 books of the new testament, and most of them specifically say that we're not saved by works.
James says that faith without works is dead, but nobody disagrees with that and it's perfectly in line with protestant/Baptist theology of salvation.

Let me clarify participation in the sacrament is an action. A sacrament is a noun.
I was also saying that "work" isn't a metaphysical term, if that's where we we're mixed up.

I have not contradicted myself, and James 2:24 BTFOs your entire "religion". This is the reason why the bible never should have been mass produced, brainlets aren't capable of understanding Paul's epistles correctly.

John 14:15 "If you love me, keep my commandments"
Matthew 19:16 if you wish to enter into life, keep commandments

The 3rd commandment is to keep holy the sabbath day. Baptism, confession, eucharist etc. are not salvific if there is no faith. James was specifically correcting that misunderstanding of Paul that Prots persist upon carrying forward to this day.

You're not understanding our argument. Are you reading these posts?
The contradiction lies here:

"Work" and "action" are synonymous for our purposes in considering Ephesians 2:9. I've provided the concordance definition that says so, this isn't a novel idea. Are you intending to argue that work means something else? On what grounds?

But does "keep holy the sabbath day" explicitly say "you must go to church"? No, I could very easily spend the whole day in prayer and I'd consider that to be pretty holy - and I don't think anyone would consider it unholy. I'm not saying that'd be preferable to going to church, since gathering with people in praise of God is always a good thing, but to say that the 3rd commandment explicitly says you must go to church every Sunday or you're going to hell is a bit of a stretch.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; 9 it is not from works, so no one may boast.
In this context faith is the initial assent to receiving Christ's salvation, and what one did in life prior to this reception of faith is not what determines whether or not God chooses to give us faith. He is not saying that you don't have to keep the commandments (baptism, as an example) after you receive this faith.

And neither are we. Please read more carefully.
You could stand being slower to speak like the Bible commends before name-calling.

Additionally, throughout the New Testament salvation is referred to in the past tense, present tense, and future tense. Here Paul is saying "you have been saved", in Philippians 2:12 he says to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" and Christ Himself said (Mt 10:22) "he who endures to the end will be saved"

Yes. What's the issue?
In the inverse, how can you, presuming you're a Catholic, justify the Bible speaking of salvation in the past tense at all? That seems to be the very notion you're passionately arguing against.

That's true. I've been trying to convert a close family member of mine and my irritation from her obstinacy is spilling over into this discussion. Sorry.

Reference to salvation in the past tense is like referencing the beginning of a journey. In a sense you have gotten to your destination as soon as you begin, but it is necessary to persist in the course. If my father called me and offered me a house in Washington I "have" the house in Washington, but only if I get there by following the route he told me to follow. I am not "earning" the house by driving to Washington, but I'm definitely not going to get the house if I choose to drive to the Atlantic instead.

Revert, actually

That's fair enough from your point of view, but from my (Catholic) perspective there is such a thing as the Sunday obligation. For us Catholics "keeping the Lord's commandments" includes obeying Church teaching, whereas you guys have a lot more room for interpretation.

Ok. I think that's a deficient understanding of sanctification.

How do you answer the main issue of our discussion, that the sacraments can't play a part in salvation given Eph 2?

Explain in the context of that analogy how your understanding differs, please.

As I wrote before the "works' mentioned are the deeds prior to conversion, and faith is the unearned gift of God, but where we probably differ is that the Church teaches that we must persevere in working out our salvation with fear and trembling in the wake of that unearned gift.

My problem is I don't see the Sunday obligation mentioned in the Bible anywhere.

It isn't in the Bible. The people in the Bible who were given authority by Christ passed on that authority to their successors and those successors teach that there is a Sunday obligation.

I don't want to get into sanctification. This is generally what I think: gotquestions.org/sanctification.html
More obviously, salvation is spoken of in the past tense because it has already happened. If you have faith, you are saved.

It sounds like you're giving an arminian answer, not a Catholic one. It is Catholic doctrine that you must be baptized in order to then be saved.

Catholicism predates Arminianism and Calvinism.
“Secondly, the sacrament of baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire; for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized but by some ill chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that works by charity, whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen, ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate, but he did not lose the grace he prayed for’” (Summa Theologia III:68:2, cf. III:66:11–12).

in A.D. 256, Cyprian of Carthage stated of catechumens who are martyred before baptism, “They certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said that he had ‘another baptism to be baptized with’

Canon four of Trent’s Canons on the Sacraments in General states, “If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that … without them or without the desire of them . . . men obtain from God the grace of justification, let him be anathema"

Right, you're affirming that Catholic doctrine teaches baptism as a necessary deeds prior to salvation. Correct?

You didn't read a single one of those quotes, did you?

Without the sacraments, you cannot be justified

...

>without them

...

I understand that Catholic doctrine holds exceptions, which I think amount to contradictions, but teach sacraments normatively as a necessary step in order to be saved.
Is this your view or not.

It is not a contradiction, one can look at St. Dismas as someone who was saved (because Christ literally told him he was) without sacraments in the scriptures. We can only accept the Church teaching on this point, that there may be cases of invincible ignorance where the saved may not necessarily be saved the rest of us are.

And as Christ Himself tells us, He has other sheep.

Sacraments are normatively necessary, yes.

How do you reconcile this view of the normative means of salvation in Catholic doctrine with Ephesians 2:9?
You've conceded that such participation in sacraments is an action. How could it be related to your salvation without contradicting scripture?

For the last time, the "works" of Ephesians 2:9 refer to the actions of a believer PRIOR TO CONVERSION. I've said it over and over.

Ok I think I see where I was misunderstanding. It is not your claim that baptism precedes salvation.

How did you conclude that the relevant passage only speaks to a pre-convert? Do you think that you can be saved via works after conversion?

It isn't that I think you can be saved via works after conversion, rather I think you can be damned via works after conversion.

That doesn't really address the question.
Why isn't the trust in taking the Eucharist as salvific in contradiction with Ephesians 2:9, for the christian?

Because Ephesians 2:9 is referring to the works prior to conversion. Man, this is getting really old.

How did you conclude that

Ephesians 4:17-24

Expound

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them
sacraments, acts of charity, etc.

Yes, the Christian should do those things. This is again stated in chapter 4.
How does this illuminate the conclusion you reached that the prohibition against trusting in works only applies to the unconverted? I'm asking for a hermeneutical answer.